Towards a Richer Debate on Tissue Engineering: A Consideration on the Basis of NEST-Ethics [Book Review]
Graduate studies at Western
Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3):963-981 (2013)
|Abstract||In their 2007 paper, Swierstra and Rip identify characteristic tropes and patterns of moral argumentation in the debate about the ethics of new and emerging science and technologies (or “NEST-ethics”). Taking their NEST-ethics structure as a starting point, we considered the debate about tissue engineering (TE), and argue what aspects we think ought to be a part of a rich and high-quality debate of TE. The debate surrounding TE seems to be predominantly a debate among experts. When considering the NEST-ethics arguments that deal directly with technology, we can generally conclude that consequentialist arguments are by far the most prominently featured in discussions of TE. In addition, many papers discuss principles, rights and duties relevant to aspects of TE, both in a positive and in a critical sense. Justice arguments are only sporadically made, some “good life” arguments are used, others less so (such as the explicit articulation of perceived limits, or the technology as a technological fix for a social problem). Missing topics in the discussion, at least from the perspective of NEST-ethics, are second “level” arguments—those referring to techno-moral change connected to tissue engineering. Currently, the discussion about tissue engineering mostly focuses on its so-called “hard impacts”—quantifiable risks and benefits of the technology. Its “soft impacts”—effects that cannot easily be quantified, such as changes to experience, habits and perceptions, should receive more attention|
|Keywords||Hard and soft impacts of technology NEST-ethics Tissue engineering|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David Hunter, Tis but a Scratch: The Human Tissue Act and the Use of Tissue for Research, Issues for Research Ethics Committees.
Douglas J. Crawford-Brown (1997). Virtue as the Basis of Engineering Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (4):481-489.
Richard C. Schugart (2010). Mathematical Modeling in Wound Healing, Bone Regeneration and Tissue Engineering. Acta Biotheoretica 58 (4):355-367.
Tsjalling Swierstra & Arie Rip (2007). Nano-Ethics as NEST-Ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation About New and Emerging Science and Technology. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 1 (1):3-20.
Allison Marziliano & Anne Moyer (2013). An Additional Consideration Regarding Expanding Access to Testicular Tissue Cryopreservation: Infertility and Social Stigma. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (3):48 - 50.
S. Matthew Liao, Anders Sandberg & Rebecca Roache (2012). Human Engineering and Climate Change. Ethics, Policy and Environment 15 (2):206 - 221.
Patrick Bateson (2006). The Nest's Tale. A Reply to Richard Dawkins. Biology and Philosophy 21 (4):553-558.
William R. Wilson (2013). Using the Chernobyl Incident to Teach Engineering Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (2):625-640.
Crystal K. Liu (2007). 'Saviour Siblings'? The Distinction Between PGD with HLA Tissue Typing and Preimplantation HLA Tissue Typing. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 4 (1):65-70.
Brigitte Jansen & Juergen Simon (2005). Some Ethical and Legal Issues in Germany Involving Informed Consent and Patenting. Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (1).
Michael Davis (1995). An Historical Preface to Engineering Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (1):33-48.
Paul C. Paquet (2005). Wolf Stories. Environmental Ethics 27 (2):115-134.
Bob Jickling & Paul C. Paquet (2005). Wolf Stories: Reflections on Science, Ethics, and Epistemology. Environmental Ethics 27 (2):115-134.
Susan Magun-Jackson (2004). A Psychological Model That Integrates Ethics in Engineering Education. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (2):219-224.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-11-15
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?