Michael S. Dauber is a law student, philosopher, bioethicist, and writer with an MA in bioethics from the New York University College of Global Public Health and a BA in philosophy and journalism from Fordham University (summa cum laude). He is currently a St. Thomas More Scholar at the St. John’s University School of Law and plans to focus on health care, civil, and human rights law. He has served as a clinical ethicist and currently worked as an institutional review board coordinator in the Human Research Protection Program in the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research at Northwell Health.
He is the founder and former editor-in-chief of Akadimia Filosofia, Fordham University’s undergraduate journal of philosophy.
He is a managing editor of Voices in Bioethics: An Online Journal, a publication associated with the Columbia University Bioethics Masters program.
In his role as “Philosopher in Residence” in the Division of Medical Ethics at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, he completed clinical ethics consults and philosophical research on the nature of principlism, the canonical framework for discerning issues in medical ethics.
His written work has appeared in Ethics, Medicine and Public Health (Elsevier), American Journal of Bioethics: Neuroscience, STAT News, Becker’s Hospital Review, The Hastings Center’s Bioethics Forum, Ethics and Society (Fordham University), The Gittenstein Institute for Health Law and Policy’s Bioethics Blog (Hofstra University), Practical Ethics: Ethics In The News (blog of the Uehiro Center for Practical Ethics at Oxford University), and Dialogue. His work has focused on issues in medical, nursing, and research ethics, and the ethics of new technologies and personal identity. He has written and presented on the ethics of three-parent babies, germ-line modification, animal research, human head transplantation, and luxury medicine, the American Health Care Act, and the use of cognitive enhancements by physicians, as well as the ways in which developments in moral psychology and neuroscience determine morality and the value of artificially intelligent “life.”