In this paper, I take seriously calls for public engagement in human genome editing decision-making by endorsing the convening of a “Citizens Jury” in conjunction with the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing’s next summit scheduled for March 6–8, 2023. This institutional modification promises a more inclusive, deliberative, and impactful form of engagement than standard bioethics engagement opportunities, such as comment periods, by serving both normative and political purposes in the quest to offer moral guidance (...) on gene editing. In examining evidence from the Australian Citizens’ Jury on Genome Editing convened in 2021, I argue that Citizens’ Juries should work in tandem with governing institutions to preserve the role of expertise while ensuring that the diverse views of the public are incorporated into their final reports as well. First, early inclusivity allows “the people” to hold agenda setting power through helping to set resource priorities. This also makes a downstream deliberative event, such as the called for Global Citizens’ Assembly, both more likely to occur and more influential on policy. Second, Jury’s diverse composition promises substantive contributions to the Commission’s work. Third, Citizens’ Juries could help to cultivate the Commission’s trustworthiness. (shrink)

Nathan Emmerich, in a recent issue of Research Ethics Review, has suggested that the ‘professional ethicist’ should be considered an ‘expert member’ in the research ethics committee. He raised a number of interesting questions and in seeking to answer them one may come to what may be regarded as an unexpected conclusion – that there is a prior need to clearly explain the concept of ‘ethical expertise’ and the ‘ethics professional’.

Whilst Colin Parker and I are in broad disagreement we would nevertheless agree that RECs have both political and ethical functions, albeit to differing degrees, and that a proper account of ethical expertise needs to be given. The uses RECs make of ethical experts and expertise and the way in which this might be recognised remains, from my perspective, open for debate. My only conclusion is that it should be recognised.

This paper considers the utility of Ethnomethodology (EM) for the study of healthcare ethics as part of the empirical turn in Bioethics. I give a brief introduction to EM through its respecification of sociology, the specific view on the social world this generates and EM's posture of ‘indifference’. I then take a number of EM concepts and articulate each in the context of an EM study of healthcare ethics in professional practice. Having given an overview of the relationship and perspective (...) EM might bring to the professional practice of healthcare ethics I consider whether and how such an approach could be deployed. Whilst an ethnographic study might be problematic I suggest a number of alternative methods through which such EM research could be accomplished. I conclude with the suggestion that, as a particular approach to sociological research, EM offers good deal of potential for the empirical study of healthcare ethics in practice which could result in an improved reflexive understanding of professional ethical practices in bioethics. (shrink)

Over the past decades, ethical expertise has been gaining considerable influence in decision-making processes on various levels, but the nature and role of bioethical expertise and experts has only rarely been subject to empirical investigation in institutional contexts. One of the characteristics of modern ethics is its “empirical” and “policy” turn, which has led to the formation of institutions that were given the remit to provide political decision-makers with ethical advice on dealing with contentious developments in new and emerging sciences (...) and technologies. In Europe, such national Ethical Advisory Bodies have become a key mechanism in the legitimization of contested sociopolitical decisions. ethicists can be seen as important experts in the workings of such institutions, but the role and function of ethical expertise and ethicists have so far not been systematically investigated in European national EABs. The present article thus tackles some of the theoretical and practical questions concerning ethicists and ethics in the context of EABs by combining theoretical reflection with empirical investigation. The first part provides a brief sketch of the development of modern ethics and its institutionalization in various expert bodies, especially EABs at the national level in Europe. The second part explores theoretical questions relating to the notion of ethical and moral expertise, as well as the attributes that ethicists should possess in order to be able to perform the role of experts in ethics within EABs. The third part compares theory to practice by examining the results of a survey conducted among European national EABs on how ethicists and ethical expertise are actually perceived by EABs and what functions they perform in such institutions. (shrink)