My research seeks to answer the question: How are we involved in and responsible for what we intend? I focus on shared and intended activity within the framework of normative ethics and action theory. I also grapple with applied ethical questions that arise in shared activity. These areas of my work inform each other. My thinking about applied topics informs the work I do in action theory and normative ethics. At other times, my more theoretical work helps to suggest novel approaches to very applied problems.
For more, please see my dissertation abstract here
For more, please see my dissertation abstract here
Manuscripts in Preparation:
The Network View of Shared Intending (under review)
In this article, I re-think the way we conceptualize how agents intend together by developing “the Network View”. In doing so, I provide new tools to determine and adjudicate the extent of an agent’s involvement in complex and intended shared activity. I argue that being an author of the way you intend matters morally. In the same way, I posit that being an author of the way a group intends ought to matter in our determination of individual and shared moral responsibility. I utilize new work in social network analysis to model how agents are located in a complex web of interactions. The location of an agent within the web allows us to discuss the extent to which she is an author of shared activity. I end by evaluating the Network View through an examination of a recent case of criminal conspiracy.
When is Sexualized Violence Genocidal (under review)
To describe how rape can be genocidal, I first explore how some rape creates a genocidal effect. I argue for an approach that allows us to consider rape as genocidal when it targets a member or members of an ethnic or religious group and causes harm that destroys or displaces that group. In the second part of the paper, I consider how an actor or actors can have genocidal intent that they carry out through rape. I conclude that, even in some supposed problem cases, wherein an individual acts without specific individual intent, genocidal intent can be present in his act of rape when he acts as part of a group. In the final part of the paper, I consider challenges to my account of genocidal rape. I ultimately argue that a rape is an act of genocide if and only if both the effect and the intent of the rape are genocidal.
A Framework for the Evaluation of Militarized Genomic Technology (under review)
As genomic technology rapidly advances, its further development for use in conflict is a focus for the United States military and other groups internationally. As we increasingly weaponize this technology, we ought to consider the ethical implications of its development and use. While there has been some scholarship on how to ethically implement genomic technology into the military, there has been little work focused on whether this technology can ever be weaponized responsibility in the first place. I aim to fill this gap in the literature by exploring the ethics of using this biotechnology in military contexts.
To this end, I develop a framework to adjudicate the militarization of genomic technology. I do this by proposing three principles that emerge through the examination of case studies. I test these principles by applying them to evaluate the use of irreversible genomic technology. I conclude that a genomic technology is suitable for use or development in military contexts if the technology is adequately responsive to the following three principles: 1) proportionality in combat, 2) beneficence for combatants receiving genomic technology, and 3) nonmaleficence for the broader non-combatant society. I end by exploring how future work could expand and refine the proposed framework.
Refereed Publications:
Amanda M. Gutierrez, Jill O. Robinson, Hadley S. Smith, Lauren R. Desrosiers-Battu, Sarah R. Scollon, Isabel Canfield, et al. (2024) Genomic sequencing research in pediatric cancer care: Decision making, attitudes, and perceived utility among adolescents and young adults and their parents, Genetics in Medicine.
Amanda M. Gutierrez, Jill O. Robinson, Robin Raesz-Martinez, Isabel Canfield et al. (2023). Views of adolescents and young adults with cancer and their oncologists toward patients’ participation in genomic research, Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology.
Christi J. Guerrini, Jorge L. Contreras, Whitney Bash Brooks, Isabel Canfield, Meredith Trejo & Amy L. McGuire (2022) “Idealists and capitalists”: ownership attitudes and preferences in genomic citizen science, New Genetics and Society.
Amanda M. Gutierrez, Sophie C. Schneider, Rubaiya Islam, Jill O. Robinson, Rebecca L. Hsu, Isabel Canfield, Christi J. Guerrini (2022). Experiences of stigma in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stigma and Health.
Hadley Stevens Smith, Stephanie R. Morain, Jill Oliver Robinson, Isabel Canfield, Janet Malek, et al. (2021) Broadening the scope: Development of a conceptual model of patients’ and parents’ perceived utility of genomic sequencing. Patient.
Mary A. Majumder, Matthew L. Blank, Janis Geary, Juli M. Bollinger, Christi J. Guerrini, Jill Oliver Robinson, Isabel Canfield, Robert Cook-Deegan, Amy McGuire. (2021) Challenges to Building a Gene Variant Commons to Assess Inherited Risk of Cancer: Interim Results of a Delphi Panel Deliberation. J. Pers. Med.
Trejo, M., Canfield, I., Brooks, W. B., Pearlman, A., & Guerrini, C. (2021). “A Cohort of Pirate Ships”: Biomedical Citizen Scientists’ Attitudes Toward Ethical Oversight. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice.
Guerrini, C.J., Schneider, S.C., Guzick, A.G., Amos Nwankwo, G.N., Canfield, I., et al. (2021) Psychological Distress Among the U.S. General Population During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Frontiers in Psychiatry.
Meredith Trejo, Isabel Canfield, Jill O. Robinson & Christi J. Guerrini (2020) How Biomedical Citizen Scientists Define What They Do: It’s All in the Name, AJOB Empirical Bioethics
Guerrini, C.J., Trejo, M., Canfield, I., McGuire, A. (2020) Core values of genomic citizen science: results from a qualitative interview study. BioSocieties.
Guerrini, C.J., Lewellyn, M., Majumder, M.A., Trejo, M., Canfield I., McGuire A. (2019) Donors, authors, and owners: how is genomic citizen science addressing interests in research outputs? BMC Medical Ethics.
Blog Posts:
- Canfield, I. (2019). The Common Rule: Too commonly applied to pregnant women? Policywise. https://blogs.bcm.edu/2019/02/01/the-common-rule-too-commonly-applied-to-pregnant-women/
Selected Presentations and Comments:
Presentation: "The Network View of Shared Intending"
- International Social Ontology Conference, Duke University, 2024.
- Rocky Mountain Ethics Congress, University of Colorado, Boulder, 2024.
Presentation: “The Value of Care and Emerging Technology”
- American Society of Bioethics and Humanities 25th Annual Conference, 2023.
Presentation: "How Rape Can Be Genocidal"
- Women and War: Feminist Approaches to War and Violence, Temple University, 2022.
- Oxford's 25th Annual Graduate Philosophy Conference, University of Oxford, 2021.
Comments: on Terry Horgan & Mark Timmons’s “Expressing Gratitude as What’s Morally Expected: A Phenomenological Approach”
- Notre Dame–ACU International Ethics Conference, 2022.
Presentation: "A Framework for the Evaluation of Emerging Genomic Technology in Military Contexts"
- American Society of Bioethics and Humanities 24th Annual Conference, 2022.
Presentation: "Shared Moral Responsibility and Related Consequences"
- Causation and Responsibility Summer School/ Workshop, University of Bern, 2021.
Presentation: “Conceptualizing Ongoing Researcher Relationships with Parents of Deceased Children in Pediatric Clinical Genomic Sequencing Research”
- American Society of Bioethics and Humanities 22nd Annual Conference, 2020.
Presentation: “Genomic Contextualism and Citizen Science”
- American Society of Bioethics and Humanities 21st Annual Conference, 2019.
Poster: “Perspectives on Openness in Genomic Community Science”
- Bio Summit, 2019.
Poster: “Ownership in Genomic Citizen Science”
- BCM Health & Science Policy Research Day, 2019.
Poster: "Characteristics and Outcomes of a Capacity-to-Consent Assessment Service"
- National Institutes of Health: Summer Poster Day, 2017.
The Network View of Shared Intending (under review)
In this article, I re-think the way we conceptualize how agents intend together by developing “the Network View”. In doing so, I provide new tools to determine and adjudicate the extent of an agent’s involvement in complex and intended shared activity. I argue that being an author of the way you intend matters morally. In the same way, I posit that being an author of the way a group intends ought to matter in our determination of individual and shared moral responsibility. I utilize new work in social network analysis to model how agents are located in a complex web of interactions. The location of an agent within the web allows us to discuss the extent to which she is an author of shared activity. I end by evaluating the Network View through an examination of a recent case of criminal conspiracy.
When is Sexualized Violence Genocidal (under review)
To describe how rape can be genocidal, I first explore how some rape creates a genocidal effect. I argue for an approach that allows us to consider rape as genocidal when it targets a member or members of an ethnic or religious group and causes harm that destroys or displaces that group. In the second part of the paper, I consider how an actor or actors can have genocidal intent that they carry out through rape. I conclude that, even in some supposed problem cases, wherein an individual acts without specific individual intent, genocidal intent can be present in his act of rape when he acts as part of a group. In the final part of the paper, I consider challenges to my account of genocidal rape. I ultimately argue that a rape is an act of genocide if and only if both the effect and the intent of the rape are genocidal.
A Framework for the Evaluation of Militarized Genomic Technology (under review)
As genomic technology rapidly advances, its further development for use in conflict is a focus for the United States military and other groups internationally. As we increasingly weaponize this technology, we ought to consider the ethical implications of its development and use. While there has been some scholarship on how to ethically implement genomic technology into the military, there has been little work focused on whether this technology can ever be weaponized responsibility in the first place. I aim to fill this gap in the literature by exploring the ethics of using this biotechnology in military contexts.
To this end, I develop a framework to adjudicate the militarization of genomic technology. I do this by proposing three principles that emerge through the examination of case studies. I test these principles by applying them to evaluate the use of irreversible genomic technology. I conclude that a genomic technology is suitable for use or development in military contexts if the technology is adequately responsive to the following three principles: 1) proportionality in combat, 2) beneficence for combatants receiving genomic technology, and 3) nonmaleficence for the broader non-combatant society. I end by exploring how future work could expand and refine the proposed framework.
Refereed Publications:
Amanda M. Gutierrez, Jill O. Robinson, Hadley S. Smith, Lauren R. Desrosiers-Battu, Sarah R. Scollon, Isabel Canfield, et al. (2024) Genomic sequencing research in pediatric cancer care: Decision making, attitudes, and perceived utility among adolescents and young adults and their parents, Genetics in Medicine.
Amanda M. Gutierrez, Jill O. Robinson, Robin Raesz-Martinez, Isabel Canfield et al. (2023). Views of adolescents and young adults with cancer and their oncologists toward patients’ participation in genomic research, Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology.
Christi J. Guerrini, Jorge L. Contreras, Whitney Bash Brooks, Isabel Canfield, Meredith Trejo & Amy L. McGuire (2022) “Idealists and capitalists”: ownership attitudes and preferences in genomic citizen science, New Genetics and Society.
Amanda M. Gutierrez, Sophie C. Schneider, Rubaiya Islam, Jill O. Robinson, Rebecca L. Hsu, Isabel Canfield, Christi J. Guerrini (2022). Experiences of stigma in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stigma and Health.
Hadley Stevens Smith, Stephanie R. Morain, Jill Oliver Robinson, Isabel Canfield, Janet Malek, et al. (2021) Broadening the scope: Development of a conceptual model of patients’ and parents’ perceived utility of genomic sequencing. Patient.
Mary A. Majumder, Matthew L. Blank, Janis Geary, Juli M. Bollinger, Christi J. Guerrini, Jill Oliver Robinson, Isabel Canfield, Robert Cook-Deegan, Amy McGuire. (2021) Challenges to Building a Gene Variant Commons to Assess Inherited Risk of Cancer: Interim Results of a Delphi Panel Deliberation. J. Pers. Med.
Trejo, M., Canfield, I., Brooks, W. B., Pearlman, A., & Guerrini, C. (2021). “A Cohort of Pirate Ships”: Biomedical Citizen Scientists’ Attitudes Toward Ethical Oversight. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice.
Guerrini, C.J., Schneider, S.C., Guzick, A.G., Amos Nwankwo, G.N., Canfield, I., et al. (2021) Psychological Distress Among the U.S. General Population During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Frontiers in Psychiatry.
Meredith Trejo, Isabel Canfield, Jill O. Robinson & Christi J. Guerrini (2020) How Biomedical Citizen Scientists Define What They Do: It’s All in the Name, AJOB Empirical Bioethics
Guerrini, C.J., Trejo, M., Canfield, I., McGuire, A. (2020) Core values of genomic citizen science: results from a qualitative interview study. BioSocieties.
Guerrini, C.J., Lewellyn, M., Majumder, M.A., Trejo, M., Canfield I., McGuire A. (2019) Donors, authors, and owners: how is genomic citizen science addressing interests in research outputs? BMC Medical Ethics.
Blog Posts:
- Canfield, I. (2019). The Common Rule: Too commonly applied to pregnant women? Policywise. https://blogs.bcm.edu/2019/02/01/the-common-rule-too-commonly-applied-to-pregnant-women/
Selected Presentations and Comments:
Presentation: "The Network View of Shared Intending"
- International Social Ontology Conference, Duke University, 2024.
- Rocky Mountain Ethics Congress, University of Colorado, Boulder, 2024.
Presentation: “The Value of Care and Emerging Technology”
- American Society of Bioethics and Humanities 25th Annual Conference, 2023.
Presentation: "How Rape Can Be Genocidal"
- Women and War: Feminist Approaches to War and Violence, Temple University, 2022.
- Oxford's 25th Annual Graduate Philosophy Conference, University of Oxford, 2021.
Comments: on Terry Horgan & Mark Timmons’s “Expressing Gratitude as What’s Morally Expected: A Phenomenological Approach”
- Notre Dame–ACU International Ethics Conference, 2022.
Presentation: "A Framework for the Evaluation of Emerging Genomic Technology in Military Contexts"
- American Society of Bioethics and Humanities 24th Annual Conference, 2022.
Presentation: "Shared Moral Responsibility and Related Consequences"
- Causation and Responsibility Summer School/ Workshop, University of Bern, 2021.
Presentation: “Conceptualizing Ongoing Researcher Relationships with Parents of Deceased Children in Pediatric Clinical Genomic Sequencing Research”
- American Society of Bioethics and Humanities 22nd Annual Conference, 2020.
Presentation: “Genomic Contextualism and Citizen Science”
- American Society of Bioethics and Humanities 21st Annual Conference, 2019.
Poster: “Perspectives on Openness in Genomic Community Science”
- Bio Summit, 2019.
Poster: “Ownership in Genomic Citizen Science”
- BCM Health & Science Policy Research Day, 2019.
Poster: "Characteristics and Outcomes of a Capacity-to-Consent Assessment Service"
- National Institutes of Health: Summer Poster Day, 2017.