Manuscript writing support services using AI technology have become increasingly available in recent years. In keeping with this trend, we need to sort out issues related to authorship in academic writing. Authorship is attached to the contribution of researchers who report innovative research, the originality of which forms the core of their identity. The most important originality is demonstrated in the discussion of study findings. In the discussion section of this paper, we argue that if a researcher uses AI-based manuscript writing support to draft the discussion section, this does not necessarily diminish the researcher’s originality. Rather, AI support may allow the researcher to perform creative work in a more refined fashion. Presumably, selecting which AI support to use or evaluating and properly adjusting AI would still remain an important aspect of research for researchers. It is thus reasonable to view a researcher as a cooperative existence realized through a network of cooperative work that includes the use of AI. Discussions on this topic will be scientifically and socially important as AI technology advances in the future.

Neuroenhancement is rapidly re-emerging as a research topic because of the development of minimally invasive brain intervention technologies, including neurofeedback. However, public attitude toward enhancement technologies remains relatively unexplored. To fill this gap in the literature, we conducted an online survey of 1258 people in Japan who were presented with four scenarios depicting minimally and highly invasive enhancement interventions. Approximately 20% of the respondents stated that they were willing to use enhancement technologies, whereas 80% were not. Most respondents were cautious about using enhancement technologies. We used a generalized linear mixed-effects model to study the association between the type of intervention and participants’ willingness to use such technologies. Factors related to willingness to use these technologies included interventions’ degree of invasiveness, as well as participants’ gender, educational attainment, and limit or suppression experiences. We also examined the influence of others’ choices and behaviors, and participants’ tolerance toward others’ use of enhancement technologies. We explored important aspects of policymaking vis à vis enhancement technologies. This study could provide valuable insights for a debate on the ethics and regulation of enhancement technologies.

While vaccination is an aid, at least temporarily, for all emerging infectious diseases, not just COVID-19, fair distribution is an issue. Vaccine distribution to smokers is one such example. The provision of vaccine preference to smokers is consistent with the maximum life-saving principle and is justified on utilitarian grounds. However, the following five possible objections can be presented: (1) self-responsibility for smoking; (2) support from non-smokers; (3) preference for those who maintain social function; (4) identification of smokers and inducement to smoking behavior; (5) consideration for passive smokers. However, arguments against prioritizing vaccination based on self-responsibility downplay the social factors of smoking. (1) Smokers should be provided with treatment, not punishment. (2) To understand non-smokers and enhance social cohesion, communitarian explanations based on the reciprocity of care should be carefully provided to non-smokers. (3) The principle of maintaining social functioning does not supersede the principle of maximum life-saving. (4) Support for smokers should be based on self-reporting. (5) Severe cases of COVID-19 caused by passive smoking are among the most important cases to avoid. The extensive implementation of testing should actively identify victims of passive smoking. This will be evidence of the damage caused by passive smoking.

Retrospective observational studies using medical records require researchers to guarantee the right to opt out of the study. However, is it also necessary to confirm whether the medical professionals who created those medical records permit their use as well? In this article, we consider possible options based on a fictitious scenario. Based on our deliberations, we recommend that the information be disclosed on the hospital’s homepage or in leaflets (principal investigator: hospital director), and, similar to patients, attending physicians should be given the opportunity to opt out. We also recommend that an application be submitted to the hospital’s research ethics committee. In this paper, we address the public interest aspect of the use of patient information as a primary item for ethical scrutiny. In addition to research ethics, this particular point underscores the importance of public health ethics, particularly as they pertain to the conflict between individual freedom and public interest.