Sophie Gibert

• Sophie Gibert (2026), Manipulation and the Demands of Agency, Free & Equal: A Journal of Ethics and Public Affairs, 2 (2), pp. 463-477. https://doi.org/10.16995/fe.25684 Abstract

  Quality of Reasoning theorists hold that manipulating someone is wrong, when it is, because it induces a flaw in their practical reasoning. They therefore think the wrong of wrongful manipulation is distinctive and basic: it supervenes on a distinctive non-moral feature. I have argued that this view is mistaken. My Reductive View holds instead that wrongful manipulation is wrong because it infringes other rights. Here I defend my view against Massimo Renzo’s recent criticism and examine his alternative.

• Leah Pierson, Leila Orszag, Sophie Gibert, Haley Sullivan, Rachel Yuexin Fei, Emily A. Largent, Govind Persad (2026), Bioethicists’ Perspectives on Ethical Research: Results of the Views in Bioethics Survey, Ethics & Human Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.70003 Abstract

  Health research plays a crucial role in advancing medicine and public health, but ethical constraints shape its conduct. This study presents findings from the Views in Bioethics Survey (VIBeS), the first large-scale systematic survey of bioethicists in the United States, which aimed to assess perspectives on key research ethics issues. We surveyed 824 bioethicists on topics including human challenge trials, research without explicit consent, financial incentives for participation, local standards of care, and the publication of high-risk research. Our findings reveal areas of consensus—such as broad opposition to publishing instructions for creating pandemic-capable viruses—as well as areas of division, particularly concerning the permissibility of local standards of care in low-income countries and research participation restrictions for pregnant adults. Subgroup analyses indicate that views on specific ethical issues are associated with factors such as disciplinary background, gender, and broader normative views. These findings may inform research policy decisions, institutional guidelines, public discourse, and further research regarding the ethics of research practices.

• Govind Persad, Emily A. Largent, Sophie Gibert, Leila Orszag, Leah Pierson (2024), Bioethicists Tomorrow: Identity, Inclusiveness, and Future Directions, The American Journal of Bioethics, 25 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2024.2434410
• Leah Pierson, Sophie Gibert, Leila Orszag, Haley Sullivan, Rachel Yuexin Fei, Govind Persad, Emily A. Largent (2024), Bioethicists Today: Results of the Views in Bioethics Survey, The American Journal of Bioethics, 24 (9), pp. 9-24. Abstract

  Bioethicists influence practices and policies in medicine, science, and public health. However, little is known about bioethicists’ views. We recently surveyed 824 U.S. bioethicists on a wide range of ethical issues, including topics related to abortion, medical aid in dying, and resource allocation, among others. We also asked bioethicists about their demographic, religious, academic, and professional backgrounds. We find that bioethicists’ normative commitments predict their views on bioethical issues. We also find that, in important ways, bioethicists’ views do not align with those of the U.S. public: for instance, bioethicists are more likely than members of the public to think abortion is ethically permissible but are less likely to believe compensating organ donors is. Our demographic results indicate the field of bioethics is far less diverse than the U.S. population—less diverse even than other academic disciplines—suggesting far more work needs to be done to build an inclusive field.

• Sophie Gibert (2023), The Wrong of Wrongful Manipulation, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 51 (4), pp. 333-372. https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12247
• Sophie Gibert, Leah Pierson, Benjamin Berkman, Marion Danis, Joseph Millum (2021), Allocation of Scarce Biospecimens for Use in Research, Journal of Medical Ethics, 47 (), pp. 740-743. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105766 Abstract

  Hundreds of millions of rare biospecimens are stored in laboratories and biobanks around the world. Often, the researchers who possess these specimens do not plan to use them, while other researchers limit the scope of their work because they cannot acquire biospecimens that meet their needs. This situation raises an important and underexplored question: how should scientists allocate biospecimens that they do not intend to use? We argue that allocators should aim to maximise the social value of the research enterprise when allocating scarce biospecimens. We provide an ethical framework for assessing the social value of proposed research projects and describe how the framework could be implemented.

• Sophie Gibert, David DeGrazia, Marion Danis (2017), Ethics of Patient Activation: Exploring Its Relation to Personal Responsibility, Autonomy, and Health Disparities, Journal of Medical Ethics, 43 (), pp. 670-675. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2017-104260 Abstract

  Discussions of patient-centred care and patient autonomy in bioethics have tended to focus on the decision-making context and the process of obtaining informed consent, leaving open the question of how patients ought to be counselled in the daily maintenance of their health and management of chronic disease. Patient activation is an increasingly prominent counselling approach and measurement tool that aims to improve patients’ confidence and skills in managing their own health conditions. The strategy, which has received little conceptual or ethical analysis, raises important questions about how clinicians ought to foster confidence and a sense of control in their patients without exposing them to blame, stigma and other harms. In this paper, we describe patient activation, discuss its relationship to personal responsibility, autonomy and health disparities, and make recommendations regarding its use and measurement.

• Sophie Gibert (2017), Closed-Loop Deep Brain Stimulation and Its Compatibility With Autonomous Agency, The American Journal of Bioethics: Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2017.1320326

Past Courses

• LGST1000 - Ethics & Social Resp

  This course explores business responsibility from rival theoretical and managerial perspectives. Its focus includes theories of ethics and their application to case studies in business. Topics include moral issues in advertising and sales; hiring and promotion; financial management; corporate pollution; product safety; and decision-making across borders and cultures.

Knowledge @ Wharton

• ICE Raids Have a Chilling Effect on Local Economies, Knowledge @ Wharton - 09/22/2026
• How Extreme Heat Affects the Economy, Knowledge @ Wharton - 09/22/2026
• AI and Financial Regulation, Knowledge @ Wharton - 09/21/2026
• AI Is Changing Jobs, Not Eliminating Them, Knowledge @ Wharton - 09/18/2026
• The Signals That Matter After NFL Week 1, Knowledge @ Wharton - 09/16/2026
• Why More Americans Are Filing for Bankruptcy, Knowledge @ Wharton - 09/16/2026
• Is Overreliance on AI Causing Agency Decay?, Knowledge @ Wharton - 09/15/2026
• Top Tips for Persuading Others, Knowledge @ Wharton - 09/15/2026
• The Liquidity Risk in Private Credit, Knowledge @ Wharton - 09/15/2026
• How AI Is Reshaping Quantitative Finance, Knowledge @ Wharton - 09/14/2026