S Matthew Liao
S. Matthew Liao
Scroll
Director of the Center for Bioethics
Arthur Zitrin Professor of Bioethics
-
Professional overview
-
Dr. Matthew Liao uses the tools of philosophy to study and examine the ramifications of novel biomedical innovations.
A speaker at TEDxCERN, Dr. Liao discussed whether it is ethical for someone to erase certain aspects of their memories and how doing so might affect that individual's identity. He has also given a TED talk in New York and been featured in the New York Times, The Atlantic, The Guardian, and other numerous media outlets.
The author and editor of four books, Dr. Liao provides the academic community with a collection of human rights essays. In The Right to be Loved, he explores the philosophical foundations underpinning children's right to be loved, and proposes that we reconceptualize our policies concerning adoptions so that individuals who are not romantically linked can co-adopt a child together.
Dr. Liao provides students with an education grounded in a broad conception of bioethics encompassing both medical and environmental ethics. He offers students the opportunity to explore the intersection of human rights practice with central domains of public health and regularly teaches normative theory and neuroethics. His courses address how the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined and ethical issues arising out of new medical technologies such as embryonic stem cell research, cloning, artificial reproduction, and genetic engineering; ethical issues raised by the development and use of neuroscientific technologies such as the ethics of erasing traumatic memories; the ethics of mood and cognitive enhancements; and moral and legal implications of "mind-reading" technologies for brain privacy.
To learn more about Dr. Liao and his work, visit his website and blog.
-
Education
-
AB, Politics (Magna Cum Laude), Princeton University, Princeton, NJDPhil, Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
-
Honors and awards
-
Outstanding Academic Title, The Right to Be Loved, Choice Review (2016)TEDx Speaker at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland (2015)TEDx Speaker, New York, NY (2013)Humanities Grant Initiative, NYU (2011)Big Think Delphi Fellow (2011)
-
Areas of research and study
-
BioethicsEpistemologyMetaphysicsMoral Psychology
-
Publications
Publications
The right of children to be loved
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Matthew Liao, S. (n.d.).Publication year
2006Journal title
Journal of Political PhilosophyVolume
14Issue
4Page(s)
420-440Abstract~The role of animal models in evaluating reasonable safety and efficacy for human trials of cell-based interventions for neurologic conditions
AbstractLiao, S. M., Regenberg, A., Mathews, D. J., Blass, D. M., Bok, H., Coyle, J. T., Duggan, P., Faden, R., Finkel, J., Gearhart, J. D., Hillis, A., Hoke, A., Johnson, R., Johnston, M., Kahn, J., Kerr, D., King, P., Kurtzberg, J., Liao, S. M., … Traystman, R. J. (n.d.).Publication year
2009Journal title
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and MetabolismVolume
29Issue
1Page(s)
1-9AbstractProgress in regenerative medicine seems likely to produce new treatments for neurologic conditions that use human cells as therapeutic agents; at least one trial for such an intervention is already under way. The development of cell-based interventions for neurologic conditions (CBI-NCs) will likely include preclinical studies using animals as models for humans with conditions of interest. This paper explores predictive validity challenges and the proper role for animal models in developing CBI-NCs. In spite of limitations, animal models are and will remain an essential tool for gathering data in advance of first-in-human clinical trials. The goal of this paper is to provide a realistic lens for viewing the role of animal models in the context of CBI-NCs and to provide recommendations for moving forward through this challenging terrain.Threshold Deontology and Moral Vagueness
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2025Abstract~Time-relative interests and abortion
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2007Journal title
Journal of Moral PhilosophyVolume
4Issue
2Page(s)
242-256AbstractThe concept of a time-relative interest is introduced by Jeff McMahan to solve certain puzzles about the badness of death. Some people (e.g. McMahan and David DeGrazia) believe that this concept can also be used to show that abortion is permissible. In this paper, I first argue that if the Time-Relative Interest Account permits abortion, then it would also permit infanticide. I next reject the suggestion that the Time-Relative Interest Account can at least explain the permissibility of early abortion, even if it cannot explain the permissibility of late abortion. Given this, early and late abortions have to be justified on other grounds.Time-relative interests and abortion
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.). (T. Brooks, Ed.).Publication year
2011Page(s)
317-333Abstract~Twinning, inorganic replacement, and the organism view
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2010Journal title
RatioVolume
23Issue
1Page(s)
59-72AbstractIn explicating his version of the Organism View, Eric Olson argues that you begin to exist only after twinning is no longer possible and that you cannot survive a process of inorganic replacement. Assuming the correctness of the Organism View, but pace Olson, I argue in this paper that the Organism View does not require that you believe either proposition. The claim I shall make about twinning helps to advance a debate that currently divides defenders of the Organism View, while the claim I shall make about inorganic replacement will help to put the Organism View on a par with its rival views by allowing it to accommodate a plausible intuition that its rivals can accommodate, namely, the intuition that you can survive a process of inorganic replacement. Both claims, I shall also argue, are important for those who are interested in the identity condition of a human organism, even if they do not hold the view that you are essentially an organism.Unintended changes in cognition, mood, and behavior arising from cell-based interventions for neurological conditions : Ethical challenges
AbstractLiao, S. M., Duggan, P. S., Siegel, A. W., Blass, D. M., Bok, H., Coyle, J. T., Faden, R., Finkel, J., Gearhart, J. D., Greely, H. T., Hillis, A., Hoke, A., Johnson, R., Johnston, M., Kahn, J., Kerr, D., King, P., Kurtzberg, J., Liao, S. M., … Mathews, D. J. (n.d.).Publication year
2009Journal title
American Journal of BioethicsVolume
9Issue
5Page(s)
31-36AbstractThe prospect of using cell-based interventions (CBIs) to treat neurological conditions raises several important ethical and policy questions. In this target article, we focus on issues related to the unique constellation of traits that characterize CBIs targeted at the central nervous system. In particular, there is at least a theoretical prospect that these cells will alter the recipients' cognition, mood, and behavior-brain functions that are central to our concept of the self. The potential for such changes, although perhaps remote, is cause for concern and careful ethical analysis. Both to enable better informed consent in the future and as an end in itself, we argue that early human trials of CBIs for neurological conditions must monitor subjects for changes in cognition, mood, and behavior; further, we recommend concrete steps for that monitoring. Such steps will help better characterize the potential risks and benefits of CBIs as they are tested and potentially used for treatment.When to Save the Baby: A Fundamental Conditions Approach
AbstractLiao, S. M., Liebman, J., & Astroth, C. (n.d.).Publication year
2024Journal title
Pace Law ReviewVolume
45Issue
1Abstract~Who Is Afraid of Numbers?
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2008Journal title
UtilitasVolume
20Issue
04Page(s)
447-461Abstract~Why children need to be loved
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Matthew Liao, S. (n.d.).Publication year
2012Journal title
Critical Review of International Social and Political PhilosophyVolume
15Issue
3Page(s)
347-358AbstractI have argued elsewhere that children have a moral right to be loved. Mhairi Cowden challenges my arguments. Among other things, Cowden believes that children do not need to be loved. In this paper, I explain why Cowdens arguments fail and offer additional evidence for why children need to be loved.Why Did People Take Ivermectin to Treat COVID-19? The Need for a Value-based Approach
AbstractLiao, S. M., Tilmes, N., Haykel, A., Restrick, B., & Golash, S. (n.d.).Publication year
2025Abstract~‘Why Do You Ask?’ Revisiting the Purpose of Eliciting the Public’s Moral Judgments About Emerging Technologies
AbstractLiao, S. M., Smith, J. N., Barnhill, A., Savulescu, J., Liao, S. M., McCoy, M. S., & Blumenthal-Barby, J. (n.d.).Publication year
2025Journal title
AJOB Empirical BioethicsPage(s)
1-13AbstractIt is increasingly common for bioethicists to consult with the public to solicit their judgments and attitudes about ethical questions and issues, especially ones that arise with new and emerging technologies. However, it is not always clear what the purpose of this engagement is or ought to be: do bioethicists seek the input of the public to help them arrive at a morally correct justified policy position, or do they seek this input to help them shape and frame their already-established moral position, or something else entirely? In this essay, we discuss four distinct possible functions of collecting moral judgments from the public: issue spotting, messaging for adherence and social stability, substantive moral guidance, and procedural fairness. For each function, we offer core examples from the literature before discussing the strengths and weaknesses attendant to each. We conclude with several preliminary questions bioethicists can ask themselves to clarify their own purpose for soliciting moral judgments from the public.