Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Goldilocks and the two principles. A response to Gyngell et al

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • i Gyngell C,1 Bowman-Smart H and Savulescu J (2019) available at:

  • ii In particular, they contrast the Nuffield report with the principles advanced by the US National Academies, which they see (rightly, in my view) as being capable of licensing contradictory states of affairs; see: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017)2. It is ironic, then, the NAS report envisions moral discourse primarily in the mode of an institutional review board. (For my response this, see:

  • iii This inclusive process may offer a way of collectively examining ‘social harms’ and broaching ‘collective action problems’, for which Gyngell et al 1 propose broadening the second Nuffield principle.

  • Contributors PM is the sole author of this work.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Correction notice This article has been amended since it was first published online. This article has been changed from a Response to a Commentary article.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

Linked Articles

Other content recommended for you