Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 May;15(2):129-39.
doi: 10.1007/s11019-011-9321-4.

The ethics of 'public understanding of ethics'--why and how bioethics expertise should include public and patients' voices

Silke Schicktanz  1 , Mark Schweda, Brian Wynne
Affiliations

The ethics of 'public understanding of ethics'--why and how bioethics expertise should include public and patients' voices

Silke Schicktanz et al. Med Health Care Philos. 2012 May.

Erratum in

  • Med Health Care Philos. 2012 May;15(2):251

Abstract

"Ethics" is used as a label for a new kind of expertise in the field of science and technology. At the same time, it is not clear what ethical expertise consists in and what its political status in modern democracies can be. Starting from the "participatory turn" in recent social research and policy, we will argue that bioethical reasoning has to include public views of and attitudes towards biomedicine. We will sketch the outlines of a bioethical conception of "public understanding of ethics," addressing three different issues: (a) the methodological relevance of moral questions and problems raised by lay persons in everyday life regarding biomedicine and technology, (b) the normative relevance of such lay moralities for the justification of ethical decisions, and (c) the necessity of public deliberation in this context. Finally, we draw conclusions in view of the concepts and methods such a conception of "public understanding of ethics" should employ.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Broadening education in bioethics.
    ten Have H, Gordijn B. ten Have H, et al. Med Health Care Philos. 2012 May;15(2):99-101. doi: 10.1007/s11019-012-9392-x. Med Health Care Philos. 2012. PMID: 22327607 No abstract available.

References

    1. Bauer MW, Allum N, Miller S. What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16(1):79–95. doi: 10.1177/0963662506071287. - DOI
    1. Beck U. Risk society: Towards an alternative modernity. Beverley Hills and London: Sage; 1992.
    1. Benhabib S, editor. Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ and Chichester: Princeton University Press; 1996.
    1. Birnbacher D. Ethics and social science: Which kind of co-operation? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 1999;2(4):319–336. doi: 10.1023/A:1009903815157. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Birnbacher D. Wofür ist der “Ethik-Experte” experte? In: Gesang B, editor. Biomedizinische ethik: Aufgaben, methoden, selbstverständnis. Paderborn: Mentis; 2002. pp. 97–114.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources