David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):425-445 (2011)
Several studies have indicated that scientists are likely to have an outlook on both facts and values that are different to that of lay people in important ways. This is one significant reason it is currently believed that in order for scientists to exercise a reliable ethical reflection about their research it is necessary for them to engage in dialogue with other stakeholders. This paper reports on an exercise to encourage a group of scientists to reflect on ethical issues without the presence of external stakeholders. It reports on the use of a reflection process with scientists working in the area of animal disease genomics (mainly drawn from the EADGENE EC Network of Excellence). This reflection process was facilitated by using an ethical engagement framework, a modified version of the Ethical Matrix. As judged by two criteria, a qualitative assessment of the outcomes and the participants’ own assessment of the process, this independent reflective exercise was deemed to be successful. The discussions demonstrated a high level of complexity and depth, with participants demonstrating a clear perception of uncertainties and the context in which their research operates. Reflection on stakeholder views and values appeared to be embedded within the discussions. The finding from this exercise seems to indicate that even without the involvement of the wider stakeholder community, valuable reflection and worthwhile discourse can be generated from ethical reflection processes involving only scienitific project partners. Hence, the previous assumption that direct stakeholder engagement is necessary for ethical reflection does not appear to hold true in all cases; however, other reasons for involving a broad group of stakeholders relating to governance and social accountability of science remain
|Keywords||Animal disease genomics Ethics Ethical matrix Ethical reflection Stakeholder engagement Participatory methods|
|Categories||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
L. Star, E. D. Ellen, K. Uitdehaag & F. W. A. Brom (2008). A Plea to Implement Robustness Into a Breeding Goal: Poultry as an Example. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (2):109-125.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Peter Sandøe (2011). Facilitating Ethical Reflection Among Scientists Using the Ethical Matrix. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):425-445.
Daan Schuurbiers (2011). What Happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):769-788.
Timothy Chappell (2011). Glory as an Ethical Idea. Philosophical Investigations 34 (2):105-134.
Anne-Marie Christensen (2011). 'A Glorious Sun and a Bad Person'. Wittgenstein, Ethical Reflection and the Other. Philosophia 39 (2):207-223.
Michael Behnam & Andreas Rasche (2009). 'Are Strategists From Mars and Ethicists From Venus?' – Strategizing as Ethical Reflection. Journal of Business Ethics 84 (1):79 - 88.
Donald J. Yarosz & Susan Willar Fountain (2003). Facilitating Reflection Among Family Literacy Participants. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 23 (1-2):39-43.
Michael Decker (2004). The Role of Ethics in Interdisciplinary Technology Assessment. Poiesis and Praxis 2 (s 2-3):139-156.
Armin Grunwald (2000). Against Over-Estimating the Role of Ethics in Technology Development. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (2):181-196.
Doris Schroeder & Clare Palmer (2003). Technology Assessment and the 'Ethical Matrix'. Poiesis and Praxis 1 (4):295-307.
Matthias Kaiser, Kate Millar, Erik Thorstensen & Sandy Tomkins (2007). Developing the Ethical Matrix as a Decision Support Framework: GM Fish as a Case Study. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (1):65-80.
Alison L. Antes, Chase E. Thiel, Laura E. Martin, Cheryl K. Stenmark, Shane Connelly, Lynn D. Devenport & Michael D. Mumford (2012). Applying Cases to Solve Ethical Problems: The Significance of Positive and Process-Oriented Reflection. Ethics and Behavior 22 (2):113 - 130.
Alison Thompson, Karen Faith, Jennifer Gibson & Ross Upshur (2006). Pandemic Influenza Preparedness: An Ethical Framework to Guide Decision-Making. [REVIEW] BMC Medical Ethics 7 (1):1-11.
R. A. H. King (2011). Universality and Argument inMencius IIA6. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 111 (2pt2):275-293.
Phil Macnaghten (2010). Engaging Narratives and the Limits of Lay Ethics: Introduction. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 4 (2):133-140.
Howard Harris (2008). Promoting Ethical Reflection in the Teaching of Business Ethics. Business Ethics 17 (4):379-390.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads47 ( #37,403 of 1,099,740 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #89,988 of 1,099,740 )
How can I increase my downloads?