My work takes place principally at the intersection of practical ethics and science and technology studies, drawing complimentary insights from the philosophy of biology, sociology of morality, and philosophical anthropology. My overarching interests are in the novel responsibilities we have towards human and non-human life in light of contemporary techno-scientific developments - both biotechnological and ecological - and how these responsibilities can be acted upon to create a more sustainable and ethical trajectory for humanity in the twenty-first century. I have explored these topics through my ESRC-funded Ph.D. work on Hans Jonas, which was supervised by Michael Hauskeller and Edward Skidelsky, and my post-doctoral project carried out as an Honorary Research Fellow, 'Toward a Richer Bioethics'.
The material you can find on this page emerged from these projects. My publications include journal articles on the ethics of synthetic biology, genome editing, and human enhancement, a co-edited collection on moral biomedical enhancement with Cambridge University Press, and, most notably, a monograph on the thought of Hans Jonas, which was published in 2021 by Bloomsbury Academic. Each, in their own way, attempts to use phenomenological resources to non-reductively account for human and non-human life, and think through our responsibilities to the latter in the light of novel technologies and developmental trends.
Address: Bristol, United Kingdom
The material you can find on this page emerged from these projects. My publications include journal articles on the ethics of synthetic biology, genome editing, and human enhancement, a co-edited collection on moral biomedical enhancement with Cambridge University Press, and, most notably, a monograph on the thought of Hans Jonas, which was published in 2021 by Bloomsbury Academic. Each, in their own way, attempts to use phenomenological resources to non-reductively account for human and non-human life, and think through our responsibilities to the latter in the light of novel technologies and developmental trends.
Address: Bristol, United Kingdom
less
InterestsView All (15)
Uploads
Drawing on unpublished and newly translated material, Lewis Coyne brings together for the first time in English Jonas’s philosophy of life, ethic of responsibility, political theory, philosophy of technology and bioethics.
I give two broad reasons why RRI (in the form advocated by the European Commission) is preferable to peer-regulation by researchers and innovators alone: one epistemic and the other ethical. However, I also argue that RRI in this form is neither rigorous nor comprehensive enough. My overall claim is that, to be truly responsible, research and innovation should be subject to legislation informed by public deliberation.
Using Heidegger’s essays ‘The Origin of the Work of Art’ and 'The Question Concerning Technology', I claim that the earth-vs.-world distinction developed therein applies fittingly to land art. Furthermore, Heidegger’s distinction between technological appropriation and poetic revealing is applied to different works to highlight their ethical relation to the earth. I argue that Andy Goldsworthy is the foremost ethical practitioner of land art: Goldsworthy’s best work situates the human world within the processes of seasonal change, decay, and regeneration, and as such achieves a balance between earth and world. I conclude with a reflection on the power of land art to set a practical and theoretical ecological example.
The workshop brought together a number of social scientists, philosophers, computational biologists, genetic engineers, and artists working on synthetic biology to stimulate multidisciplinary deliberation and insights into the political challenges and philosophical ideas emerging at the cutting edge of innovation in synthetic biology.
The event was coordinated by Darian Meacham (Director for Responsible Research and Innovation at BrisSynBio) and Miguel Prado Casanova in conjunction with BrisSynBio. BrisSynBio is a multi-disciplinary research centre that focuses on the biomolecular design and engineering aspects of synthetic biology, and has been established as one of six Synthetic Biology Research Centres in the UK. BrisSynBio is funded predominantly by the BBSRC and EPSRC, and has a number of other academic, industrial and public-facing partners. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a cross-cutting theme in the centre. Its offices are at the University of Bristol Life Sciences Building, Tyndall Avenue, UK BS8 1TQ. As a BBSRC/EPSRC Synthetic Biology Research Centre, BrisSynBio is one of the leading research centres in the UK on synthetic biology. The event was organised as an activity of the NAPSTER Project (New Anthropology in Philosophy, Science, Technology and Engineering Research), funded by the University of the West of England, Bristol. This report has been adapted to inform the deliberations taking place on synthetic biology at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
The report is about geoengineering - principally in the form of stratospheric sulphate injection (SSI) - and concerns its purported necessity as well as the risks involved. I conclude that despite its positive qualities, SSI is too risky to pursue as a ‘plan B’ to the ‘plan A’ of emissions mitigation. Although research into SSI should continue, implementation ought only to be considered as a last resort: a ‘plan Z’. As such, an alternative geoengineering scenario is proposed – the preferred plan B – to complement the greatest possible emissions mitigation efforts.
The course consists of an investigation into the human condition (conditio humana) through classic texts in anthropology. ‘Anthropology’ is here understood in a broad sense, encompassing both philosophical and empirical (social/cultural) anthropology. The guiding idea of the course is that philosophical anthropology can tell us what the human condition is as a concept, while social and cultural anthropology can shed empirical light on its component parts. As such, we will begin and end with philosophical reflection on the human condition – including asking what makes it different from human nature – and focus in the weeks between on particular aspects of the human condition.
Drawing on unpublished and newly translated material, Lewis Coyne brings together for the first time in English Jonas’s philosophy of life, ethic of responsibility, political theory, philosophy of technology and bioethics.
I give two broad reasons why RRI (in the form advocated by the European Commission) is preferable to peer-regulation by researchers and innovators alone: one epistemic and the other ethical. However, I also argue that RRI in this form is neither rigorous nor comprehensive enough. My overall claim is that, to be truly responsible, research and innovation should be subject to legislation informed by public deliberation.
Using Heidegger’s essays ‘The Origin of the Work of Art’ and 'The Question Concerning Technology', I claim that the earth-vs.-world distinction developed therein applies fittingly to land art. Furthermore, Heidegger’s distinction between technological appropriation and poetic revealing is applied to different works to highlight their ethical relation to the earth. I argue that Andy Goldsworthy is the foremost ethical practitioner of land art: Goldsworthy’s best work situates the human world within the processes of seasonal change, decay, and regeneration, and as such achieves a balance between earth and world. I conclude with a reflection on the power of land art to set a practical and theoretical ecological example.
The workshop brought together a number of social scientists, philosophers, computational biologists, genetic engineers, and artists working on synthetic biology to stimulate multidisciplinary deliberation and insights into the political challenges and philosophical ideas emerging at the cutting edge of innovation in synthetic biology.
The event was coordinated by Darian Meacham (Director for Responsible Research and Innovation at BrisSynBio) and Miguel Prado Casanova in conjunction with BrisSynBio. BrisSynBio is a multi-disciplinary research centre that focuses on the biomolecular design and engineering aspects of synthetic biology, and has been established as one of six Synthetic Biology Research Centres in the UK. BrisSynBio is funded predominantly by the BBSRC and EPSRC, and has a number of other academic, industrial and public-facing partners. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a cross-cutting theme in the centre. Its offices are at the University of Bristol Life Sciences Building, Tyndall Avenue, UK BS8 1TQ. As a BBSRC/EPSRC Synthetic Biology Research Centre, BrisSynBio is one of the leading research centres in the UK on synthetic biology. The event was organised as an activity of the NAPSTER Project (New Anthropology in Philosophy, Science, Technology and Engineering Research), funded by the University of the West of England, Bristol. This report has been adapted to inform the deliberations taking place on synthetic biology at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
The report is about geoengineering - principally in the form of stratospheric sulphate injection (SSI) - and concerns its purported necessity as well as the risks involved. I conclude that despite its positive qualities, SSI is too risky to pursue as a ‘plan B’ to the ‘plan A’ of emissions mitigation. Although research into SSI should continue, implementation ought only to be considered as a last resort: a ‘plan Z’. As such, an alternative geoengineering scenario is proposed – the preferred plan B – to complement the greatest possible emissions mitigation efforts.
The course consists of an investigation into the human condition (conditio humana) through classic texts in anthropology. ‘Anthropology’ is here understood in a broad sense, encompassing both philosophical and empirical (social/cultural) anthropology. The guiding idea of the course is that philosophical anthropology can tell us what the human condition is as a concept, while social and cultural anthropology can shed empirical light on its component parts. As such, we will begin and end with philosophical reflection on the human condition – including asking what makes it different from human nature – and focus in the weeks between on particular aspects of the human condition.
En effet, en répliquant à l’acosmisme gnostique et au nihilisme moderne, Jonas entend dépasser les ruptures qui menacent notre image de la vie au sein des utopies technologiques et des options scientifiques et politiques contemporaines. Dans sa perspective qui insiste tout à la fois sur la continuité du vivant et sur la spécificité humaine, l’image joue un rôle central et ambigu.
Ainsi, le caractère sacré, historique et vulnérable de « l’image de l’homme » désigne à la fois sa portée ontologique et anthropologique, mais aussi la tentation constante de rompre avec sa condition corporelle. Celle-ci est donc au cœur des enjeux éthiques et bioéthiques contemporains, que ce soit à propos de la technologie, de la crise écologique, des manipulations génétiques, de l’amélioration du corps humain ou de la révolution numérique.
L’objectif de ce colloque est triple : d’une part, clarifier les relations réciproques entre vie, corps et image dans la pensée de Hans Jonas ; d’autre part, situer sa pensée dans le contexte plus large d’une problématique phénoménologique et ontologique ; enfin, ouvrir aux enjeux éthiques, sociaux et politiques. Alors la pensée de Jonas pourrait s’avérer centrale pour les débats contemporains qui mobilisent la production d’images mentales, virtuelles et matérielles ainsi que sur les imaginaires sociaux qui tiennent compte de notre dimension corporelle à des degrés différents. En effet, un des grands défis actuels est de rendre les productions et les révolutions technologies compatibles avec la préservation de la vie et de la vie humaine sur terre.