Is resilience always adaptive and functional, or can resilience be maladaptive in contexts where it masks vulnerability or prevents effective action to address risk? In this paper, we propose a new reading of resilience research which challenges the prevailing positive perspective and instead proposes that negative aspects of resilience are common. We focus on studying resilience on a spectrum, distinguishing between degrees of functionality by asking three questions: (1) Is there a wrong degree of resilience? (2) Is there a wrong context for resilience? and (3) Is there a wrong type of resilience? We conclude with reflections on the dark side of resilience by differentiating between functional and less functional adaptation in relation to contexts, degrees of risk, and types of resilience shown.

How have advances in the use of biomedical and cognitive enhancement affected our understanding of human resilience? At what point does enhancement facilitate recovery and growth after exposure to adversity, and when is enhancement a manipulation of human potential, causing a redefinition of resilience as something more than a return to normal functioning? In this article we juxtapose theories of enhancement and resilience, exploring how biomedical and cognitive enhancement technologies are influencing our understanding of the limits of human wellbeing in contexts of exposure to atypical stress or challenge. Specifically, we discuss 3 different ways biomedical enhancement can influence psychological and physical resilience: (a) enhancement that builds latent capacity and resources to deal effectively with atypical stressors before exposure to risk, (b) enhancement as intervention which adds to an individual's existing psychological and social resources after exposure to risk, and (c) transhumanism as a means to make individuals even more resilient than they would be without intervention. These 3 areas of focus distinguish enhancement typologies by their temporality and ontological suppositions of what it means to be fully functioning before, during and after exposure to adversity. The article concludes with a discussion of the potential within the biomedical and cognitive enhancement fields to bolster resilience through interventions that exert a positive influence on human biology. Public Significance StatementResilience, defined broadly, is the capacity to recover from difficulties. An individual's recovery is dependent on the contextual resources. We propose that average individuals, as well as disabled, can benefit from human enhancement techniques in order to be more resilient.

Since a number of years, popular and scientific interest in resilience is rapidly increasing. More recently, also neuroscientific research in resilience and the associated neurobiological findings is gaining more attention. Some of these neuroscientific findings might open up new measures to foster personal resilience, ranging from magnetic stimulation to pharmaceutical interventions and awareness-based techniques. Therefore, bioethics should also take a closer look at resilience and resilience research, which are today philosophically under-theorized. In this paper, we analyze different conceptualizations of resilience and argue that especially one-sided understandings of resilience which dismiss social and cultural contexts of personal resilience do pose social and ethical problems. On a social level such unbalanced views on resilience could hide and thereby stabilize structural social injustices, and on an individual level it might even lead to an aggravation of stress-related mental health problems by overexerting the individual. Furthermore, some forms of fostering resilience could be a latent form of human enhancement and trigger similar criticisms.

How do residents of small towns that depend on oil and gas extraction or processing industries withstand economic boom and bust cycles? To answer this question, this article reports on a narrative analysis of residents’ life stories gathered from 37 adults of a small town on the Canadian prairies dependent on the oil and gas industry, employing the theories of narrative inquiry and narrative identity. Participants aged 30 to 76 were interviewed and their experiences of living in an unstable economy that is dependent mostly on a single resource extraction industry were explored. Specifically, we asked participants about the effect of economic change on factors related to resilience like family interactions, work choices, educational pathways, and the quality of their social lives. Our analysis of adult narratives looked for patterns in the relationship between risk exposure, promotive and protective factors at multiple systemic levels (individual, relational, cultural), and functional outcomes such as individual coping, community cohesion, and social and economic sustainability. Results show that a strong identity, in particular expressions of personal agency, communion, and engagement in meaning making are contributing factors to adult resilience in a context of economic change. Our results also highlight how positive attitudes towards a better future may inadvertently undermine the need for residents of oil and gas-dependent towns to commit to economic diversification and other potential resilience-promoting strategies.

Novel immune therapies are increasingly based on the molecular differentiation of disease patterns. The related clinical studies are thus more often characterized by the so-called adaptive study designs (umbrella or basket studies including platform studies), which are continuously adjusted based on novel results. This paper analyses new study designs beyond the often-postulated need for regulation in order to identify ethical problems based on typical structural features and to—whenever possible—suggest solutions. To do so, it addresses the following topics: the relationship between social and scientific values of a study as well as aspects of the scientific validity of new forms of evidence; the inclusion of study subjects under the condition of relative uncertainty; specific challenges in the process of ethical approval, and ethical and practical challenges in the process of informing patients and receiving informed consent. Additionally, the topic of a potential risk–benefit assessment of such therapies is addressed.