Bioethics in the Anthropocene: A powerful tool for sustainable development and planetary co-responsibility

^{1, 2}Erika Salavarría.

³Ronald Cárdenas.

⁴Fernando Arroyo.

⁵Segundo Vilema.

^{1, 2} Grupo de Investigación “Bioeconomía Costera” de la Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena UPSE.²Maestría en Biotecnología Agropecuaria. Universidad Técnica Estatal de Quevedo. Ecuador. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0662-065X.  

³Facultad de Derecho. Universidad de Lima, Perú. rcardena@ulima.edu.pe ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1777-9423.

⁴ Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Bioética. Quito. Ecuador.ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6397-4502

⁵Universidad ECOTEC. Samborondón. Ecuador. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1768-0300

Corresponding author: esalavarria@upse.edu.ec

Abstract.

Bioethics is considered inherent to scientific work, and in this context, the approach to cultural diversity is viewed as playing a crucial role in the Anthropocene, facilitating the reconciliation of scientific development with the appreciation of ancestral and local knowledge. In this article, the co-evolution of science and culture explored within the framework of a reflective standpoint in bioethics, which is not only presented through its principles but also used to guide decision-making by reconfiguring practices that contribute to a more just scientific culture. A transition from global bioethics to pluralistic and inclusive bioethics is presented. Bioethical dilemmas in scientific practice are analyzed through various examined examples, and scientific practice is defined as situated and politically active; therefore, it is expected to be guided by bioethical principles. The values of environmental and social responsibility are emphasized in the training of natural science professionals to promote sustainable development and planetary co-responsibility within the context of a transformation of worldviews through a bioethical reinterpretation.

Keywords: Anthropocene, Bioethics, Culture, Science, Co-evolution.

1. Co-evolution between science and culture

Current scientific and technical challenges aimed at combining social development with the care of the environment and nature are being addressed through decisions that require a significant modern ethical component, bioethics. In general, it has been accepted that this discipline was established in 1971 with the publication of the book “Bioethics: A Bridge to the Future” authored by Professor Van Rensselaer Potter, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin. However, it has been acknowledged that Fritz Jahr, a German professor, Protestant pastor, and philosopher, was the first to use the term “bioethics” in an article published in 1927 in the renowned German natural science journal Kosmos (Saas, 2011), although apparently in a different context. Jahr extended Kant’s moral imperative to all forms of life, turning it into a pragmatic model of balance between moral obligations, rights, and perspectives: “Respect every living being in principle as an end in itself and, if possible, treat it as equal.” Philosophy has continued to be seen as playing a crucial and significant role in bioethics (Sandu, 2020; Blumenthal-Barby et al., 2022; Alvarez, 2022).

Within the context of the Anthropocene, where human activities have been altering ecosystems, bioethics has emerged as a discipline in which science, culture, and generational responsibility converge, resulting in bioethical dilemmas that cannot be analyzed without considering the co-evolution between scientific knowledge and the cultures of communities that support or reject it.

At the same time, bioethics has been rapidly developed, especially in the medical field, with the aim, among others, of encouraging ethically appropriate behaviors during the training of healthcare professionals, thereby enabling more humane patient care, which today includes healthcare applications that help prevent efficient diseases (Lucivero & Jongsma, 2018; Mendieta et al., 2021).). However, the medical field has not been considered the only area of application, as bioethics has been recognized as highly relevant to all biological sciences, allowing for the understanding of how the Anthropocene concept reflects a broad and current approach to bioethics (Donadoni & Ciliberti, 2024). This article addresses the issue of shared responsibility for the protection of the environment, the biosphere, and biodiversity in the Anthropocene, in other words, planetary co-responsibility, which was originally proposed by Potter in his idea of “Global Bioethics”, emphasizing bioethics as an interdisciplinary science. This vision has since been reflected in the establishment of ethics and bioethics committees across institutions worldwide, whose work depends on their field of action, whether in health, academia, research or government, at national or international levels (Goodwin et al., 2012; Wilches, 2014; Köhler et al., 2020), to provide ethical and bioethical perspectives to global issues, promote social justice, defend human rights, and support responsible decision-making in areas such as biodiversity conservation, environmental protection, science and technology.

Based on what has been previously discussed, it is undeniable that culture has been seen to influence science, especially when global challenges such as climate change, artificial intelligence, and gender studies have raised questions that science must address, questions that arise within cultural, political, and ethical frameworks. Although different cultures have been recognized as having different moral codes, pluralistic bioethics has acknowledged alternative ethical frameworks, making it possible to understand how different cultures interpret these challenges, resulting in a form of bioethics that embraces cultural diversity (Mbugua, 2012; Sarian, 2019). Science and culture have thus been viewed as mutually influencing and co-evolving within both human and non-human contexts.

Furthermore, following the emergence of bioethics, three years after Potter’s initial publications, a congressional commission of the United States, later known as the Belmont Commission, was appointed in 1974 with the aim of establishing ethical guidelines to protect the rights of human subjects in scientific research. In 1978, the commission issued the well-known Belmont Report, considered a modern benchmark for human research ethics. This report summarizes three key ethical principles in clinical research: (1) respect for people, (2) beneficence, and (3) justice (Turner, 2012; Pose, 2020; Varkey, 2021).

As mentioned previously, bioethics has been seen as playing a key role in the practice of healthcare professionals today, seeking to balance values and principles during conflict situations, implying that the weight of decisions may fall either on the physician or the patient, depending on the context (Arroyo & Avilés, 2000; Arras, 2017). The application of bioethics in the medical field has been considered essential to properly assume the consequences of decisions, both professionally and personally. However, no differences have been established between physicians and other professionals in the natural sciences, such as molecular biologists, regarding the ethical considerations and bioethical principles applicable to both groups. The US bioethicists Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress proposed these principles. According to Ebbesen & Pedersen (2007), in their study on the ethical reasoning of Danish physicians and molecular biologists, it was reported that the latter explicitly considered non-maleficence in relation to the environment, researchers’ own health, and animal models, and only implicitly in relation to patients or human subjects. In contrast, oncologists’ non-maleficence considerations were directed toward human patients. Molecular biologists viewed the principle of autonomy respect as a negative obligation, which means that informed consent must be respected. However, unlike molecular biologists, physicians perceived the principle of autonomy respect as a positive obligation, as the physician, in dialogue with the patient, offered a medical prognosis based on the wishes and ideas of the patient, mutual understanding, and respect. This study concluded that these principles are applicable to both groups within their professional practices.

This article has been written with the aim of offering an integrative approach to bioethics, or the ethics of life, in the professional practice of those working in the natural and social sciences, in light of cultural practices in the Anthropocene, with emphasis on professionals in biology, environmental studies, and environmental law. It has been intended as a descriptive ethical reflection to support decision-making based on the co-evolution of scientific research and culture within the framework of bioethics, involving society as a whole.

2. Methodology

Qualitative documentary research methodology was carried out, with a hermeneutic focus and deductive analytic characteristics, because a descriptive analysis of various historical contexts and situations concerning bioethics, culture and the natural sciences, such as biology, was executed, thus imparting a transdisciplinary character. Concordance was also present in this study, as the arguments of the biological sciences and their interpretation from bioethics were associated (Casas Martínez, 2008).

Interpretative techniques were used to describe bioethics as an instrument to achieve sustainability within the framework of the biological sciences and to present precise information. In this research, a retrospective approach was adopted, using a research design in which thematic content in bioethics and sustainable development was systematically and reflectively analyzed (Bardin, 2011), allowing generalizations and inferences to be made regarding the topics addressed here (Haggarty, 1996), using qualitative methodologies.

The documentary review consisted of the reading of articles published in the databases Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Dialnet, redalyc.org, Academia.edu, and Google Scholar up to July 2025. These platforms were chosen because visibility and access to science are widely used by researchers in bioethics. The descriptors used to search for articles on bioethics were obtained from the UNESCO Thesaurus; terms such as Bioética (Spanish) and Bioethics (English) were employed to access articles that were directly or indirectly related to bioethical topics and their correspondence with other disciplines, for example, medical bioethics, philosophy, and other social and natural sciences.

3. Critical review of current approaches

   3.1. Science transforms culture

   Anticipation of the bioethical problems that will have to be faced during this century is extremely complex because the rapid development of emerging technologies, such as biotechnologies, and the axiological and social transformations experienced globally make it truly difficult for a prospective viewpoint with minimal guarantees of success to be articulated (Torralba, 2016). A society of uncertainty is thereby inhabited, in which the greater complexity of the world, the errors made by scientists and experts, and the accelerated technology that creates new realms of ignorance produce perplexity and dismay (Innerarity, 2022). Nevertheless, scientific theories are generated that have transformed the human understanding of everything surrounding the planet. In that context, the environment can be considered to be the result of a global system of decision‑making architecture in which actors of all kinds, from consumers to large companies and governments, participate (Thaler & Sunstein, 2018).

From the perspective of cultural analysis, the incorporation of this approach into scientific research offers numerous ways to address the importance of culture as an integrative element in all areas of the sciences and bioethics, since culture is all‑encompassing and represents intervening or inseparable resources from power relations. New forms of research interest that reflect inter/transdisciplinary analysis are thereby required; this is supported by the different areas of work represented by research projects in emerging disciplines from the standpoint of the natural sciences, for example, bioprospecting compared with recognition of the values associated with ancestral knowledge and benefit sharing (Chenhall et al., 2014). Knowledge challenging deeply rooted cultural beliefs is generated by science; reflection on possibilities, consideration of risks, and proposals that, without being scientific, set the course of scientific development are participated in by bioethics (Carvalho & Ramalho‑Santos, 2013).

Furthermore, scientific advances have led to new approaches in light of the need to protect the biosphere and all its components; examples include technological developments that allow the environment to be monitored via environmental DNA, satellite tools with artificial intelligence, clean energy production, genetically modified foods, gene therapies, nanotechnologies, pluripotent stem cells, ecosystem restoration through bioengineering and others. With these tools, the pursuit of a dignified quality of life framed within a just society can be confronted. These challenges are increasingly complex because system behavior is not determined by individual elements but rather by their interaction (Innerarity, 2022), which implies rational behavior by people or organizations that may nevertheless be harmful to the environment.

From the viewpoint of the role of bioethics in sustainable development, an integrative vision that extends beyond medical and biotechnological approaches is provided. A global bioethics that includes the human relationship with the environment as a fundamental dimension for human survival was proposed by Potter (1971).

3.2. Challenges faced by bioethics

Damages to nature, and consequently to biodiversity and its multiple habitats, are continuously evidenced in diverse ways; for instance, the Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a global standard for measuring ecosystem health, reported that within the next fifty years the mangrove ecosystems evaluated are at risk of collapse, having been classified as Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered (Sievers et al., 2020).

At the global level, it is estimated that mangroves contribute 1.6 billion dollars annually in ecosystem services and livelihoods. However, between 1980 and 2005, 807,030 hectares of mangroves were lost in Latin America (Sol‑Sánchez et al., 2022). In Ecuador, the main causes have been attributed to urban expansion, road and bridge construction, and shrimp farming industries, one of the most dynamic productive sectors, but one that causes large‑scale mangrove loss and affects the ecological role of these forests. In other countries, such as Peru, shrimp cultivation has been one of the most significant causes of mangrove destruction and land‑use change, resulting in a negative effect on production volumes of other species (Sol‑Sánchez et al., 2022).

On the other hand, ecosystem services such as supply, regulation, support and cultural service are provided by mangrove forests, since important natural barriers against coastal flooding are offered, climate change is prevented through carbon sequestration (“blue carbon”), biological filtration is performed and contributions to the bioeconomy of community members through tourism and fishing are made. However, mangrove logging is causing economic losses to artisanal fisheries and harming biodiversity. In this scenario, the relevance of bioethics is taken on, being understood as the science created to promote proper behaviour principles with regard to life; ethical guidelines for making the most appropriate decisions regarding the conservation of these important ecosystems, such as mangroves, are thus offered. That is to say, precautionary principles (UNESCO, 2005) are applied in mangrove management, with emphasis when scientific certainty regarding the impacts of anthropogenic activities that may deteriorate these ecosystems is absent. From the sustainable development perspective, SDG 13 and SDG 14, Climate Action and Life Below Water, respectively, offer the sustainability foundation for mangrove restoration, through application of ethical criteria (Ten Have, 2016) and recognition of these ecosystems as common goods, being a shared natural heritage (Ramsar, 2021).

Another example is provided by the use of the sea, and its planning and management by the public or private sectors. Marine spatial planning, defined by UNESCO as the public process of analysis and allocation of spatial and temporal distributions of human activities in marine areas with the aim of achieving economic, social and ecological objectives that are often defined through a political process, is represented as an important tool for safeguarding the bioethical principle of beneficence in these coastal marine ecosystems where coastal populations’ bioeconomic activities are sustained.

In the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is clearly affirmed that human activities, mainly through greenhouse gas emissions, have caused global warming of 1.5 °C. Aspects of the ocean, the cryosphere, and sea level in a changing climate have been studied using paleoreconstructions, observations, and mathematical model simulations in order to improve evaluation of past changes, hypotheses, and processes of the last century (Reyes & Arenas, 2022). Simulators projecting future alterations, providing improved projections and uncertainty estimates, have also been used, together with systematic data analysis, to carry out projections regarding ocean heat content, land ice loss, and sea level rise (Fox‑Kemper, 2021). Transformative changes in sectors such as food, energy, transport, industry, buildings, and land use are therefore required (IPCC, 2023).

Numerous examples of environmental impacts that are increasingly frequent and evident, and of global efforts to face them, can be cited. A question of importance would be how tools that enable correct decision‑making in this field can be generated. In order for those decisions to be made, professional and even personal ethical principles must be considered, combined with the common good that includes the protection of all life forms on our planet. That last part would appear to be an impossible challenge given the socio‑economic elements that undoubtedly generate strong pressures. An analogy to the constant decisions that both professional and personal realms require must be assumed, with consequences that must be accepted.

In this vein, global bioethics prioritizing solidarity, environmental respect, and shared responsibility was proposed by Ten Have (2016). Bioethics is similarly indicated as a science that fosters a moral responsibility attitude toward ecosystems, thus giving rise to the idea that humans are not superior to nature but part of an independent system (Ten Have, 2010). In that realm, cultural development together with technological development offered by science yields co‑evolution—that is, changes together in response to current challenges. Science is no longer only objective but also situated, responding to socio‑ecological contexts from political ecology, ethnobiology, and environmental sciences in which ancestral knowledge through worldviews that integrate the spiritual and the communal is recognized. Interdependence among species and ecosystems is acknowledged, and bioethics is granted as a space of dialogue between cultural traditions and science, promoting an inclusive ethics that recognizes the rights of nature and fosters shared responsibility (Chapman & Schott, 2020).

3.3. Sustainable development and bioeconomy

Although environmental, biosphere, and biodiversity impacts produced by anthropogenic activity are not the only driving factor for decision‑making framed within bioethical principles, the need to incorporate the participation of young human resources in order to apply creative and innovative solutions to diverse problems humanity faces is also currently present. In that context, ten principles for a sustainable bioeconomy were proposed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 2021, and youth are recognized as agents of change, being considered as those who in the future will manage global ecosystems and agro‑food systems through various efforts, including those framed in the bioeconomy, with the goal of ensuring inclusive economic development that is resilient to future crises and contributes to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Youth have consequently been integrated as a cross‑cutting theme in the FAO Strategic Framework, as a key aspect of decisive importance for the 2030 Agenda, and it has been considered a priority in all areas of work, especially focusing on the interaction between bioeconomy and young professionals in decision‑making in this sector (Dietershagen & Bammann, 2023). Since the biological wealth of countries can be transformed into sustainable economic value if ethically and bioethically managed, the bioeconomy is considered one of the pillars of economic productivity. Environmental sustainability, social justice, and young human resources are therefore considered as a potential source of innovative solutions to longstanding problems, being engines of change in the global economy, as they become young bio‑entrepreneurs.

Hence, the intergenerational aspects linked to youth participation in bioethics for generating sustainable development involve their formation, since participatory and creative educational spaces are generated for them to perform their future role as ethical, critical citizens. Furthermore, it involves youth empowerment to become active participants in social and environmental change processes (Sachs, 2015). Recognition of their role as active agents in transforming the relationship among science, culture, technology, and bioethics is therefore implied, as well as their status as active subjects capable of decision‑making toward the construction of more sustainable, just, and ethically informed models.

Recent advances in science and technology have enabled new functions of biological resources to be found (Hodson de Jaramillo, 2018), in which youth participation in decision‑making is key to influencing resource use sustainably; for example, biomass production increases and use of biowaste allow diversification of the value chain as an opportunity for bio‑entrepreneurship creation, this would be an appropriate scenario for applying bioethical principles in the sustainable management of natural resources. At present, youth group participation in the public policy formulation process to promote the bioeconomy has not been evident due to the education deficit regarding these topics at the secondary level. If this is achieved, a more just society, enabling decisions directed toward strengthening and developing practices that benefit the environment, biosphere, and biodiversity will be reached.

Vidal (2010) emphasizes the need for ethics to be applied in order to assess the impact of knowledge and technology on human, environmental, and social development. The use of biotechnology for technological innovation in sectors such as agriculture, health, and clean energy must be governed by ethical principles that ensure transparency, precaution, and equity in scientific‑technological processes in order to prevent negative impacts on the environment and vulnerable communities.

Bioethical principles and bioethics are described as valuable tools for responding to different scientific‑technological challenges that inevitably influence the environment, biosphere, and biodiversity surrounding us. In that context, facing the problem of climate change seriously becomes essential. Additionally, instruments such as the Sustainable Development Goals are presented as a clear example of an area where the application of bioethics is vital, since they are designed to contribute to a better, fairer and more inclusive quality of life, avoiding harm to our surroundings; socio‑economic advancement of populations is allowed to be combined with their protection, especially of the most vulnerable. In that context, beneficial changes in decision‑making may be brought about by global bioethics through integration of the SDGs into economic decision‑making and public policy, since elites who have greater influence over decision‑making (Gregg, 2022) may be justified in prioritizing economic, political concerns over health and human survival through bioethical arguments. That is so because governments, responsible for citizens’ health and well‑being, as well as industries and their leaders, who have civic responsibility toward their governments and communities (including consumers), hold the greatest control over the environment and Earth’s resources; however, these social actors continue to fail to administer them for the benefit of the majority of citizens and consumers in countries that have even adhered to the Glasgow Climate Pact, a key result of COP‑26 in the recent year 2021; hence little hope for health and survival in the near or distant future exists (Macpherson, 2022). Consequently, by integrating the Sustainable Development Goals into economic decision‑making and applying bioethical principles, benefits are offered through the assurance that socio‑economic development processes are conducted responsibly, justly, and respectfully toward nature, limiting utilitarian approaches to that development and encouraging sustainable decision‑making.

Thus, bioethics is being given greater relevance as society advances alongside the instruments created by humanity to establish the necessary social balance, and the totalizing true ethical meaning of bioethics is lost without consideration of the social dimension (Gros, 2005). Participatory and democratic governance is also promoted by bioethics, where decisions regarding the use of natural and technological resources are made considering the voices of local communities and diverse actors (Sachs, 2015).

3.4. Bioethics and professional training of biologists

The incorporation of bioethics into the training of professionals in the natural sciences in the Anthropocene, not only of medical professionals but also for example biologists, environmental engineers, agricultural engineers, among others, and in the training of professionals in the social sciences such as environmental law specialists, is made imperative because dualisms of nature and culture must be understood, local and ancestral knowledge must be recognized and valued, and technological developments such as AI, biotechnological techniques or environmental law must be comprehended as cultural and ethical, not merely technical tools. It is equally fundamental that bioethical principles are incorporated into research conducted in these areas and that scientific praxis is assumed to be situated and politically active, within which it must be framed by principles of shared responsibility. Hence, those conducting such research must be aware of the bioethical aspects, as a reflective bridge associated with cultural and ecosystemic concerns, so that they may be taken into account in their investigative work.

In his work Critique of Practical Reason, Immanuel Kant holds that only through the principle of autonomy, free from all empirical content and centered on objective reason (Fajardo, 2021), can enlightenment toward a science with conscience be provided. In global bioethics, the first principle of David Hume’s moral philosophy and the principle of responsibility proposed by Hans Jonas must also be taken into account. That includes recognition of the responsibility that researchers and decision‑makers should have to appreciate the value of nature, which leads to an environmental ethics that must be founded on a commonly accepted basis, nothing other than respect for life (Burgui, 2015).

The bioethical dilemma that increasingly arises among new generations of scientists is caused by conflicts in genetic manipulation, experimentation with animals, and the use of AI for handling information, among others. That challenge is to be addressed through biological sciences applying a method of bioethical analysis that allows limits of scientific research to be agreed upon (Zemel et al., 2020) and, from the legal side, to be assigned the most appropriate juridical form. That method of bioethical analysis is combined with ethical principles and legal foundations, along with valuation of the situation (Alvarado et al., 2016), in order to find fair responses and solutions in situations in which science merits being considered as what it is: knowledge that enables progress and sustainable societal development. An ethics of actions for sustainability (GBS, 2018) from the anthropogenic perspective has thus given rise due to the urgency of meeting humanity’s needs while conserving the environment, biosphere, and biodiversity.

Through Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UNESCO, 2005), it is indicated that due attention must be paid to the impact of life sciences on future generations, including their environmental dimension. A long‑term ethical and environmental vision is therefore to be assumed within academic curricula, research training, and professional practice.

4. Conclusions

In the Anthropocene, science and culture are constantly co-evolving. Scientific development is being discovered as a way to advance society, allowing the world around us to be understood, while culture is being shaped with new epistemologies that make it possible for the necessary coexistence between ancestral and scientific knowledge to be understood, giving way to bioethics as the balance between both. For this reason, technological advances and the problems inherent to these advances are inevitably being generated, not only as ethical and bioethical dilemmas, but also as cultural ones, and professionals from various scientific fields are being required to be prepared to face them, in response to the constant changes in planetary boundaries and to new questions that are being raised by science, which had not been asked by culture.

Decisions in both public and private sectors are required to be made coherently, justly, and objectively, in order to avoid the collapse of biological and ecological systems that are part of the planet. This implies that shared responsibility is required in making ethical and bioethical decisions in the face of the scientific challenges of this century. Bioethical values are to be taken as the foundation for the formulation of sustainable public policies. The application of science is being subjected to analysis by articulating bioethics and its principles for the protection of the environment across all scientific and sociocultural domains, and this is considered an urgent need in order to foster an ethical culture throughout society. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are being articulated with Potter’s reflective thinking and that of other ethicists and bioethicists, forming the foundation for the healthy development of society. In this context, bioethics is being integrated into sustainable development when principles are presented that require the rights of those not yet born to be considered, by ensuring that the needs of present generations are met without compromising those of future generations.

Finally, in the field of technological advances involving artificial intelligence, which is offering a wide range of possibilities in daily life, the law is being required to remain alert in order to ensure that this technological development is guided by the principles of ethics and bioethics (Cárdenas, 2024), since bioethics, in fact, was born as a discipline oriented toward the future (as indicated by the title of Potter’s book), considering that “the future is not yet determined, but must be built.”

5. References

1. Alvarado, G.; Ochoa, M. and Partidas, G. 2016. Una metodología para discutir dilemas éticos. Educación Superior y Sociedad (ESS), 17(17): 113-133. DOI: https://ess.iesalc.unesco.org/index.php/ess3/article/view/126
2. Alvarez, A. 2022. Exploring the “other” role of philosophy in bioethics: The case of addressing moral distress and rediscovering meaning and purpose. The American Journal of Bioethics, 22(12): 67-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2134495
3. Arras, JD. 2017. Principles and particularity: the roles of cases in bioethics. In Ethics and Medical Decision-Making (pp. 99-130). Routledge. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1621&context=ilj
4. Arroyo, FA. and Avilés, NV. 2000.  El consentimiento informado, práctica bioética fundamental en la medicina moderna. Revista Facultad de Ciencias Médicas. 25(2).
5. Bardin, L. 2011. Análise de conteúdo [Content analysis]. São Paulo: Edições 70.
6. Blumenthal-Barby, J.; Aas, S.; Brudney, D.; Flanigan, J.; Liao, SM.; London, A.; Sumner, W. and Savulescu, J. (2022). The place of philosophy in bioethics today. The American Journal of Bioethics, 22(12): 10-21.

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:aae2ee05-8204-475e-a92c-3d37fbcc64b2/files/r5138jf17w

• Burgui, MB. 2015. Hans Jonas: Conservación de la naturaleza, conservación de la vida. Cuadernos de bioética, 26(2): 253-266.

https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/875/87541128006.pdf

• Cárdenas, R. 2024. Inteligencia Artificial, Derechos fundamentales y bioética.  Ponencia presentada en el 13 Congreso Latinoamericano de FELAIBE, organizado por la Universidad de Lima y la Federación Latinoamericana de Instituciones de Bioética. Del 14 al 16 de octubre de 2021. Pp 55-62. Primera edición digital. Lima.
• Carvalho, AS. and Ramalho-Santos, J. 2013. How can ethics relate to science? The case of stem cell research. European journal of human genetics, 21(6): 591-595. 
• Casas Martínez, MDLL. 2008. Introducción a la metodología de la investigación en bioética: sugerencias para el desarrollo de un protocolo de investigación cualitativa interdisciplinaria. Acta bioethica, 14(1): 97-105. https://www.scielo.cl/pdf/abioeth/v14n1/art13.pdf
• Chapman, JM. and Schott, S. 2020. Knowledge coevolution: Generating new understanding through bridging and strengthening distinct knowledge systems and empowering local knowledge holders. Sustainability Science, 15(3): 931-943.
• Chenhall, R.; Martinelli, L.; McLaughlin, J.; Paulsen, B.; Senior, K.; Svalastog, A. L.; Tunon, H. and Werdelin, L. 2014. Culture, science and bioethics: Interdisciplinary understandings of and practices in science, culture and ethics. New Zealand Online Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 1 (2): 100-124.
• Dietershagen, J. and Bammann, H. 2023. Opportunities for youth in the bioeconomy – Opportunities and barriers for youth employment and entrepreneurship in the emerging bioeconomy sectors. FAO Agricultural Development Economics Technical Study, No. 30. Rome, FAO. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc8238en
• Donadoni, P. and Ciliberti, R. 2024. How the Anthropocene is changing bioethics. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, 65(2): E303.
• Ebbesen, M. and Pedersen, BD. 2007. Empirical investigation of the ethical reasoning of physicians and molecular biologists–the importance of the four principles of biomedical ethics. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 2: 1-16. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/1747-5341-2-23.pdf
• Fajardo, AMF. 2021. Ética de Immanuel Kant. Revista Internacional de Filosofía Teórica y Práctica, 1(1): 127-138. file:///C:/Users/HP/Downloads/23-Texto%20del%20art%C3%ADculo-33-1-10-20210130.pdf
• FAO. 2021. Aspirational Principles and Criteria for a Sustainable Bioeconomy. Bioeconomy. Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/cb3706en/cb3706en.pdf
• Fox-Kemper, B. 2021. Ocean, cryosphere and sea level change. In AGU fall meeting abstracts. Vol. 2021, pp. U13B-09.
• GBS. 2018. Global Bioeconomy Summit Conference Report Innovation in the Global Bioeconomy for Sustainable and Inclusive Transformation and Wellbeing. Global Bioeconomy Summit. Berlin, Office of the Bioeconomy Council. https://gbs2020.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/GBS_2018_Report_web.pdf.
• Goodwin, M.; Kramer, C. and Cashmore, A. 2012. The ‘ethics committee’: a practical approach to introducing bioethics and ethical thinking. Journal of Biological Education, 46(3): 188-192.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2012.688846

• Gregg, B. 2022. Political bioethics. In The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine. 47(4): 516-529. US: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhac008
• Gros Espiell, H. 2005. Ética, bioética y derecho. Bogotá: Temis.
• Haggarty, L. 1996. What is content analysis? Medical Teacher 18(2): 99–101.
• Hodson de Jaramillo, E. 2018. Bioeconomía: el futuro sostenible. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, 42(164): 188-201. http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?pid=S0370-39082018000300188&script=sci_arttext
• Innerarity, D. 2022. La sociedad del desconocimiento. Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg. https://www.galaxiagutenberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/La-sociedad-del-desconocimiento_web.pdf
• IPCC, 2023: Sections. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 35-115. DOI: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647
• Köhler, J.; Reis, AA. and Saxena, A. 2020. A survey of national ethics and bioethics committees. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 99(2): 138. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7856354/pdf/BLT.19.243907.pdf
• Lucivero, F. and Jongsma, KR. 2018. A mobile revolution for healthcare? Setting the agenda for bioethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 44(10): 685-689. https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/44/10/685.full.pdf
• Macpherson, C. 2022. Global bioethics: it’s past and future. Global Bioethics, 33(1): 45-49.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/11287462.2021.2011009

• Mbugua, K. 2012. Respect for cultural diversity and the empirical turn in bioethics: a plea for caution. Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine, 5(1).
• Mendieta Izquierdo, G.; Yate Arévalo, A. and Torres López, TM. 2021. Representaciones sociales de bioética y ética en estudiantes de medicina. Educación Médica Superior, 35(4). http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?pid=S0864-21412021000400004&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
• Pose, C. 2020. La bioética, 50 años más tarde. EIDON. Revista española de bioética, (54): 11-23.  DOI: 10.13184/eidon.54.2020.11-23
• Ramsar 2021. Informe Anual Ramsar 2021 y Plan para el 2022: Iniciativa para los humedales del Mediterráneo.
• Reyes, VRO. and Arenas, MA. 2022. Sexto informe de evaluación del IPCC: cambio climático 2022 (impactos, adaptación y vulnerabilidad). https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
• Saas, HM. 2011. El pensamiento bioético de Fritz Jahr. Revista Aesthéthika. 6 (2): 20-33. https://www.aesthethika.org/El-pensamiento-bioetico-de-Fritz
• Sachs, JD. 2015. The age of sustainable development. Columbia University Press.
• Sandu, A. 2020. Bioethics–Philosophy or Science?. Logos, Universality, Mentality, Education, Novelty. Section: Philosophy and Humanistic Sciences, 8(1): 44-60. DOI: 10.18662/lumenphs/8.1/35.
• Sarian, A. 2019. Ethical Self-Reflection in Papers, Please. Cultural Science Journal, 11(1), pp. 41–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/csci.122
• Sievers, M.; Pearson, RM.; Turschwell, MP.; Bishop, MJ.; Bland, L.; Brown, C. J.; Tulloch, VJD.; Haig, JA.; Olds, JA.; Maxwell, PS. and Connolly, RM. 2020. Integrating outcomes of IUCN red list of ecosystems assessments for connected coastal wetlands. Ecological Indicators, 116, 106489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106489
• Sol-Sánchez, A.; Hernández-Melchor, GI.; Hernández-Hernández, M. and Toruño, PJ. 2022. Desarrollo bioeconómico y manglares en América Latina. Revista Iberoamericana de Bioeconomía y Cambio Climático, 8(16): 2007-2017. https://portal.amelica.org/ameli/journal/394/3943529009/3943529009.pdf
• Ten Have, H. 2010. Hacia un juramento ético universal para científicos1. Ciencia para la paz y el desarrollo: el caso del Juramento Hipocrático para Científicos, 17.
• Ten Have, H. 2016. Global bioethics: An introduction. Routledge.
• Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. 2018. Nudge: Naar betere beslissingen over gezondheid, geluk en welvaart. Business Contact.
• Torralba, F. 2016. Grandes desafíos de la bioética. Escenarios de futuro. Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética, (1): 1-12. DOI: 10.14422/rib.i01.y2016.002
• Turner, TR. 2012. Ethical issues in human population biology. Current Anthropology, 53(S5): S222-S232. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/662661
• UNESCO. 2005. Declaración universal sobre bioética y derechos humanos. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Asamblea General
• Varkey, B. 2021. Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1): 17-28. https://karger.com/mpp/article-pdf/30/1/17/3128579/000509119.pdf
• Vidal, S. 2010. La bioética en América Latina: el programa de bioética de la UNESCO para la Región. Ciencia para la paz y el desarrollo: el caso del Juramento Hipocrático para Científicos, 2: 137-153.
• Wilches Flórez, ÁM. 2014. La bioética, la voz orientadora de la investigación. Revista Lasallista de Investigación, 11(1): 97-102. http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?pid=S1794-44492014000100012&script=sci_arttext
• Zemel, MGE.; Miguel, R.; Vanoni, V. V.; Bosi García, SF. and Di Bastiano, SN. 2020. Análisis de dilemas bioéticos asociados con la biología. En Primer Congreso de Educación en Ciencias Biológicas (CECIB). Edición virtual, 27 y 28 de noviembre de 2020.