Artificial Intelligence (AI) has enriched the lives of people around the globe. However, the emergence of AI-powered lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) has become a significant concern for the international community. LAWS are computer-based weapon systems capable of completing their missions, including identifying and engaging targets without direct human intervention. The use of such weapons poses significant challenges to compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law. Scholars have extensively examined LAWS in the context of humanitarian law; however, their implications for human rights warrant further discussion. Against this backdrop, this paper analyzes the human rights challenges posed by LAWS under international law. It argues that using LAWS in warfare and domestic law enforcement operations could violate human rights, such as the rights to life, human dignity, and remedy, among others. Thus, it calls for a prohibition of the use of killer robots against humans.

Journal editors often deal with allegations of research misconduct, defined by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in the United States as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. It is important that editors have a transparent and consistent process to deal with these allegations quickly and fairly. This process will include the authors and may include research integrity officers at the sponsoring institution as well as funders. Retractions may not be consistent with the ORI definition, for example, specifying inadequate peer-review and unreported conflict of interest, but nevertheless represent scientific misconduct.

While it is no longer tenable to simply oppose interest in the cultural legacy of ancient Greece and Rome to interest in Europe’s New Worlds, the task of assessing the interpretative lens provided by a humanistic education remains rather tangled. Taking as a starting point some examples from the conquest of Chile and elsewhere in Spanish America, the lecture examines critically how classical models of memorable behavior, and an idea of antiquity that often implied an enhanced sense of cultural distance, strengthened the principle of comparability, shaped imperial self-representation, and affected the interpretation of indigenous agency.

Multi-institutional scientific research projects are increasingly common. Nevertheless, regulations and guidelines do not yet adequately address which entity should assume responsibility for research misconduct proceedings in multi-institutional research. This article explores the challenges of determining jurisdictional roles in research misconduct matters in collaborative science and proposes the application of a “jurisdictional interests test” as a framework for determining jurisdiction in multi-institutional research misconduct proceedings.

This study characterizes 2008-2022 FDA advisory committee discussions of new supplemental indication applications that were not approved by FDA. Discussion themes included contextual concerns unique to already-approved drugs, including insights from prior experience and concerns about off-label use, and efficacy and safety concerns also observed for new drugs. These findings highlight advisory committees’ role in transparency of regulatory decision-making, specifically for drugs already authorized for use.

En puisant aux études menées sur le « capital génétique » et la politisation des économies animales, cet article examine la façon dont les races animales et leur circulation transnationale deviennent des enjeux géopolitiques dans l’Europe de la fin du xviie et du xviiie siècles. Il s’intéresse notamment aux efforts du gouvernement français, particulièrement intenses après la guerre de Sept Ans (1756-1763), pour imiter la production de laine anglaise et espagnole, et tenter de surmonter l’avantage économique dû à la meilleure qualité des races ovines de ses voisins et concurrents. Alors que l’exportation de moutons vivants était complètement interdite en Angleterre et en Espagne, les Français s’échinaient à améliorer leur cheptel ovin par des importations illicites et des accords diplomatiques. Ces entreprises culminèrent dans les années 1760, lorsque le Bureau du commerce entama une collaboration avec des agronomes, des naturalistes, des diplomates et des contrebandiers afin de faire passer des races ovines de qualité supérieure à travers la frontière maritime franco-britannique et la frontière pyrénéenne avec l’Espagne. Ces projets se développèrent en parallèle de nouvelles conceptions de la stabilité et de la permanence des races, d’après lesquelles les animaux conserveraient leurs propriétés quels que soient les climats et les environnements. Au carrefour de l’histoire économique, agricole, politique et culturelle, le présent article développe le concept de « mercantilisme animal » pour explorer les enjeux géopolitiques inhérents aux différentes conceptions des animaux, de la race et du climat.