David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Issues about communication in genomics have moved out of the clinic and into the public arena. Scientists other than clinicians are confronted by calls for public engagement. Genomics gives rise to these demands partly because it inevitably raises the three basic questions of philosophy as outlined by Kant: What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope? Genomics on its own cannot answer these questions. In relation to what can be known, its answer is at best partial. Nor can the ought question be settled by science. In fact, science is criticized for reducing options while claiming to be neutral in the pursuit of knowledge. The answer to the ought question is crucially related to the hope question in so far as this deals with issues about the point of human life generally. The role of public engagement in relation to all these questions may have different objectives. It is argued that there is more of a place for it in relation to the hope question than is commonly recognized, and in particular with regard to the role of science, which could benefit from developing a service ideal in the sense found in discussions of professional ethics
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Ruth Chadwick & Sarah Wilson (2004). Genomic Databases as Global Public Goods? Res Publica 10 (2):123-134.
Jordan Bartol (2013). Re-Examining the Gene in Personalized Genomics. Science and Education 22 (10):2529-2546.
Marko Barendregt & René Van Hezewijk (2005). Adaptive and Genomic Explanations of Human Behaviour: Might Evolutionary Psychology Contribute to Behavioural Genomics? [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 20 (1):57-78.
Jeffrey H. Barker (2003). Common-Pool Resources and Population Genomics in Iceland, Estonia, and Tonga. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6 (2):133-144.
Lenny Moss (2006). Redundancy, Plasticity, and Detachment: The Implications of Comparative Genomics for Evolutionary Thinking. Philosophy of Science 73 (5):930-946.
John Dupré (2004). Understanding Contemporary Genomics. Perspectives on Science 12 (3):320-338.
Michael M. Burgess (2004). Public Consultation in Ethics an Experiment in Representative Ethics. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 1 (1):4-13.
Antonio Marturano & Ruth Chadwick (2004). How the Role of Computing is Driving New Genetics' Public Policy. Ethics and Information Technology 6 (1):43-53.
Luis Fernández Moreno (2001). Tarskian Truth and the Correspondence Theory. Synthese 126 (1-2):123 - 147.
Gail E. Henderson, Eric T. Juengst, Nancy M. P. King, Kristine Kuczynski & Marsha Michie (2012). What Research Ethics Should Learn From Genomics and Society Research: Lessons From the ELSI Congress of 2011. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (4):1008-1024.
Jorge J. E. Gracia (2001). Philosophy in American Public Life. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 11:129-140.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-01-29
Total downloads1 ( #440,892 of 1,101,676 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #292,019 of 1,101,676 )
How can I increase my downloads?