Published Work (*=peer reviewed)
* Gibert, S. "Manipulation and the Demands of Agency," Free & Equal: A Journal of Ethics and Public Affairs, forthcoming.
I defend my Reductive View of manipulation against Massimo Renzo's recent criticism and examine his alternative, on which wrongful manipulation is wrong because it undermines someone's efforts to exercise their practical agency well. I argue that his view introduces an explanatory problem and rests on too demanding a picture of practical agency.
Gibert, S, "Must We Define Manipulation?" Journal of Practical Ethics, forthcoming.
I consider the role that conceptual analysis should play in theorizing about the ethics of manipulation. I argue that, in their recent books, Robert Noggle and Shlomo Cohen each prioritize the project of defining manipulation in a way that ultimately compromises their ethical analysis.
Gibert S, "Robert Noggle, Manipulation: Its Nature, Mechanisms, and Moral Status," Ethics, 2026.
* Gibert S, "The Wrong of Wrongful Manipulation," Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2023.
I argue against the widespread view that manipulation is wrong when and because it alters someone's practical reasoning in a certain way - either subverts it, circumvents it, or affects it non-rationally. Instead I defend the Reductive View, according to which manipulating someone is wrong, when it is, because it infringes one or more of their other rights. The wrong of wrongful manipulation is therefore non-basic: it cannot be identified without pointing to some other wrong that's involved.
* Pierson L, Orszag L, Gibert S, Sullivan H, Fei RY, Largent E, and Persad G, "Bioethicists' Views on Ethical Research," Ethics & Human Research (in press)
We present findings from a survey of American bioethicists on major issues in research ethics.
* Persad G, Largent E, Gibert S, Orszag L, and Pierson L, "Bioethicists Tomorrow: Identity, Inclusiveness, and Future Directions," The American Journal of Bioethics, 2024.
We respond to open peer commentaries on our previous article.
* Pierson L, Gibert S, Orszag L, Fei RY, Sullivan H, Largent E, and Persad G, "Bioethicists Today: Results of the Views in Bioethics Survey," The American Journal of Bioethics, 2024.
We present findings from a survey of American bioethicists on major issues in bioethics.
* Gibert S, Pierson L (co first authors), Berkman B, Danis M, and Millum J, "Allocation of Scarce Biospecimens for Use in Research," Journal of Medical Ethics, 2021. Penultimate draft.
We argue that scientists and researchers should aim to maximize the social value of the research enterprise as a whole when allocating scarce biospecimen samples, provide an ethical framework for assessing the contributions that proposed research projects would make to the social value of the research enterprise, and describe how the framework can be implemented.
* Gibert S, DeGrazia D, and Danis M, "The Ethics of Patient Activation," Journal of Medical Ethics, 2017. Penultimate draft.
We consider the ethics of measuring and aiming to improve "patient activation" - that is, the extent to which patients with chronic medical conditions feel responsible for, and in control of, their own health outcomes - and describe how clinicians can increase the sense of agency that such patients have with respect to their health without exposing them to blame, stigma, and other harms.
* Gibert S, “Closed-Loop Deep Brain Stimulation and its Compatibility with Autonomous Agency,” Open Peer Commentary, American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience, 2017.
I argue that closed-loop deep brain stimulation (DBS) does not threaten agency more than do other treatments, substances, and modes of influence, simply because it reduces the individual’s degree of local control and conscious awareness; and that allowing individuals a higher degree of local control does not necessarily mitigate concerns about their agency.
Work In Progress
Paternalism and the Right to Be Wronged (draft available on request)
In Defense of Moralized Theories (draft available on request)
Manipulation and Voluntary Consent
* Gibert, S. "Manipulation and the Demands of Agency," Free & Equal: A Journal of Ethics and Public Affairs, forthcoming.
I defend my Reductive View of manipulation against Massimo Renzo's recent criticism and examine his alternative, on which wrongful manipulation is wrong because it undermines someone's efforts to exercise their practical agency well. I argue that his view introduces an explanatory problem and rests on too demanding a picture of practical agency.
Gibert, S, "Must We Define Manipulation?" Journal of Practical Ethics, forthcoming.
I consider the role that conceptual analysis should play in theorizing about the ethics of manipulation. I argue that, in their recent books, Robert Noggle and Shlomo Cohen each prioritize the project of defining manipulation in a way that ultimately compromises their ethical analysis.
Gibert S, "Robert Noggle, Manipulation: Its Nature, Mechanisms, and Moral Status," Ethics, 2026.
* Gibert S, "The Wrong of Wrongful Manipulation," Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2023.
I argue against the widespread view that manipulation is wrong when and because it alters someone's practical reasoning in a certain way - either subverts it, circumvents it, or affects it non-rationally. Instead I defend the Reductive View, according to which manipulating someone is wrong, when it is, because it infringes one or more of their other rights. The wrong of wrongful manipulation is therefore non-basic: it cannot be identified without pointing to some other wrong that's involved.
- Featured on the New Work in Philosophy Blog
- Online discussion on PEA Soup Blog with precis by Massimo Renzo: March 20, 2024
* Pierson L, Orszag L, Gibert S, Sullivan H, Fei RY, Largent E, and Persad G, "Bioethicists' Views on Ethical Research," Ethics & Human Research (in press)
We present findings from a survey of American bioethicists on major issues in research ethics.
* Persad G, Largent E, Gibert S, Orszag L, and Pierson L, "Bioethicists Tomorrow: Identity, Inclusiveness, and Future Directions," The American Journal of Bioethics, 2024.
We respond to open peer commentaries on our previous article.
* Pierson L, Gibert S, Orszag L, Fei RY, Sullivan H, Largent E, and Persad G, "Bioethicists Today: Results of the Views in Bioethics Survey," The American Journal of Bioethics, 2024.
We present findings from a survey of American bioethicists on major issues in bioethics.
* Gibert S, Pierson L (co first authors), Berkman B, Danis M, and Millum J, "Allocation of Scarce Biospecimens for Use in Research," Journal of Medical Ethics, 2021. Penultimate draft.
We argue that scientists and researchers should aim to maximize the social value of the research enterprise as a whole when allocating scarce biospecimen samples, provide an ethical framework for assessing the contributions that proposed research projects would make to the social value of the research enterprise, and describe how the framework can be implemented.
* Gibert S, DeGrazia D, and Danis M, "The Ethics of Patient Activation," Journal of Medical Ethics, 2017. Penultimate draft.
We consider the ethics of measuring and aiming to improve "patient activation" - that is, the extent to which patients with chronic medical conditions feel responsible for, and in control of, their own health outcomes - and describe how clinicians can increase the sense of agency that such patients have with respect to their health without exposing them to blame, stigma, and other harms.
* Gibert S, “Closed-Loop Deep Brain Stimulation and its Compatibility with Autonomous Agency,” Open Peer Commentary, American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience, 2017.
I argue that closed-loop deep brain stimulation (DBS) does not threaten agency more than do other treatments, substances, and modes of influence, simply because it reduces the individual’s degree of local control and conscious awareness; and that allowing individuals a higher degree of local control does not necessarily mitigate concerns about their agency.
Work In Progress
Paternalism and the Right to Be Wronged (draft available on request)
In Defense of Moralized Theories (draft available on request)
Manipulation and Voluntary Consent