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
. 2013 Mar;21(1):31-42.
doi: 10.1007/s10728-012-0219-y.

From 'implications' to 'dimensions': science, medicine and ethics in society

Affiliations

From 'implications' to 'dimensions': science, medicine and ethics in society

Martyn D Pickersgill. Health Care Anal. 2013 Mar.

Abstract

Much bioethical scholarship is concerned with the social, legal and philosophical implications of new and emerging science and medicine, as well as with the processes of research that under-gird these innovations. Science and technology studies (STS), and the related and interpenetrating disciplines of anthropology and sociology, have also explored what novel technoscience might imply for society, and how the social is constitutive of scientific knowledge and technological artefacts. More recently, social scientists have interrogated the emergence of ethical issues: they have documented how particular matters come to be regarded as in some way to do with 'ethics', and how this in turn enjoins particular types of social action. In this paper, I will discuss some of this and other STS (and STS-inflected) literature and reflect on how it might complement more 'traditional' modes of bioethical enquiry. I argue that STS might (1) cast new light on current bioethical issues, (2) direct the gaze of bioethicists towards matters that may previously have escaped their attention, and (3) indicate the import not only of the ethical implications of biomedical innovation, but also how these innovative and other processes feature ethics as a dimension of everyday laboratory and clinical work. In sum, engagements between STS and bioethics are increasingly important in order to understand and manage the complex dynamics between science, medicine and ethics in society.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Abadie R. The professional Guinea Pig: Big pharma and the risky world of human subjects. Durham: Duke University Press; 2010.
    1. Archard D. Why moral philosophers are not and should not be moral experts. Bioethics. 2011;25(3):119–127. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01748.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ashcroft R. Constructing empirical bioethics: Foucauldian reflection on the empirical turn in bioethics research. Health Care Analysis. 2003;11(1):3–13. doi: 10.1023/A:1025329811812. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Blomquist C. The teaching of medical ethics in Sweden. Journal of Medical Ethics. 1975;1(2):96–103. doi: 10.1136/jme.1.2.96. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brodwin P. The coproduction of moral discourse in U.S. Community psychiatry. Medical Anthropology Quarterly. 2008;22(2):127–147. doi: 10.1111/j.1548-1387.2008.00011.x. - DOI - PubMed