Do we need Berlin walls or chinese walls between research, public consultation, and advice? New public responsibilities for life scientists
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (4):385-395 (2003)
During the coming decades, life scientists will become involved more than ever in the public and private lives of patients and consumers, as health and food sciences shift from a collective approach towards individualization, from a curative to a preventive approach, and from being driven by desires rather than by technology. This means that the traditional relationships between the activities of life scientists – conducting research, advising industry, governments, and patients/consumers, consulting the public, and prescribing products, be it patents, drugs or food products, information, or advice – are getting blurred. Traditional concepts of the individual, role, task, and collective responsibility have to be revised. This paper argues, from a pragmatic point of view, that the concept of public responsibility can contribute considerably in delineating new gray zones between the various roles of the life scientist: conducting research for governments or industry, giving advice, prescribing and selling products, and doing public consultation. The main issues are where new Chinese walls (not Berlin walls) need to be built between these activities, thereby increasing trust between life scientists and the public at large, and how to organize research agendas and to decide upon research topics.
|Keywords||professional ethics public debates on science research ethics role and public responsibility|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Rinie van Est (2011). The Broad Challenge of Public Engagement in Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):639-648.
Thomas Talbott (2004). Misery and Freedom: Reply to Walls. Religious Studies 40 (2):217-224.
Rinie Est (2011). The Broad Challenge of Public Engagement in Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):639-648.
Françoise Baylis (2009). The Hfea Public Consultation Process on Hybrids and Chimeras: Informed, Effective, and Meaningful? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19 (1):pp. 41-62.
Peta Cook (2011). What Constitutes Adequate Public Consultation? Xenotransplantation Proceeds in Australia. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (1):67-70.
S. Pomfret, Q. A. Karim & S. R. Benatar (2010). Inclusion of Adolescent Women in Microbicide Trials: A Public Health Imperative! Public Health Ethics 3 (1):39-50.
Craig Cormick (2009). Why Do We Need to Know What the Public Thinks About Nanotechnology? NanoEthics 3 (2):167-173.
Mairi Levitt (2003). Public Consultation in Bioethics. What's the Point of Asking the Public When They Have Neither Scientific nor Ethical Expertise? Health Care Analysis 11 (1):15-25.
David Resnik (2011). Scientific Research and the Public Trust. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):399-409.
Zubin Master & David B. Resnik (2013). Hype and Public Trust in Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (2):321-335.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #203,447 of 1,911,680 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #458,010 of 1,911,680 )
How can I increase my downloads?