Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An ethics of expertise based on informed consent

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ethicists widely accept the notion that scientists have moral responsibilities to benefit society at large. The dissemination of scientific information to the public and its political representatives is central to many of the ways in which scientists serve society. Unfortunately, the task of providing information can often give rise to moral quandaries when scientific experts participate in politically charged debates over issues that are fraught with uncertainty. This paper develops a theoretical framework for an “ethics of expertise” (EOE) based on the notion that scientists have responsibilities to provide information in a way that promotes autonomous decision-making on the part of the public and its representatives. Moreover, insofar as the principle of informed consent has developed in biomedical ethics as a way for physicians to promote autonomous decision-making on the part of their patients, this paper suggests that the informed-consent concept may suggest a set of criteria and guidelines that can help scientists to fulfill their similar ethical responsibilities to the public. In order to illustrate how the resulting EOE could provide practical guidance for scientific experts, the paper examines a case study involving the dissemination of information about the low-dose biological effects of toxic chemicals and carcinogens.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kitcher, P. (2001) Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pimple, K. (2002) Six Domains of Research Ethics: A Heuristic Framework for the Responsible Conduct of Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Resnik, D. (1998) The Ethics of Science. Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Shrader-Frechette, K. (1994) The Ethics of Scientific Research. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hardwig, J. (1994) Toward an Ethics of Expertise, in: Wueste, D. ed. Professional Ethics and Social Responsibility. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Resnik, D. (1996) Critical Study: Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Ethics of Scientific Research. Noûs 30: 133–143.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Segerstrale, U. (2001) Judging ‘Good Science’: Toward Cooperation between Scientists and Lawyers, in: Weil, V. ed. Trying Times: Science and Responsibilities after Daubert. CSEP & ISLAT, Chicago: 48–61.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fiorino, D. (1990) Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values 15: 226–243.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Shrader-Frechette, K. (1991), Risk and Rationality. University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Shrader-Frechette, K. (1993) Consent and Nuclear Waste Disposal. Public Affairs Quarterly 7: 363–377.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wigley, D. and K. Shrader-Frechette (1996) Environmental Justice: A Louisiana Case Study. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9: 61–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Beauchamp, T. and J. Childress (2001) Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Taylor, J. (2004) Autonomy and Informed Consent: A Much Misunderstood Relationship. Journal of Value Inquiry 38: 383–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. National Research Council (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Turner, S. (2003) Liberal Democracy 3.0. SAGE Publications, London.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Faden, R. and T. Beauchamp (1986) A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  17. May, T. (2002) Bioethics in a Liberal Society. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mazur, D. (2003) The New Medical Conversation. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wear, S. (1993) Informed Consent: Patient Autonomy and Physician Beneficence within Clinical Medicine. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Longino, H. (2001) The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Longino, H. (1990) Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Solomon, M. (2001) Social Empiricism. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rowe, G. and L. Frewer (2000) Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values 25: 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilkinson, T. (2001) Research, Informed Consent, and the Limits of Disclosure. Bioethics 15: 341–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kitcher, P. (1985) Vaulting Ambition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Roth, A., Dunsby, J., and L. Bero (2003) Framing Processes in Public Commentary on US Federal Tobacco Control Regulation. Social Studies of Science 33: 7–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shrader-Frechette, K. (1997) Hydrogeology and Framing Questions Having Policy Consequences. Philosophy of Science 64 (Supplement 1997): S149-S160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Donnelly, M. (2002) Consent: Bridging the Gap Between Doctor and Patient. Cork University Press, Cork.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gert, B., C. Culver, and K. Clouser (1997) Bioethics: A Return to Fundamentals. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Friedberg, M., B. Saffran, T. Stinson, W. Nelson, and C. Bennett (1999) Evaluation of Conflict of Interest in Economic Analyses of New Drugs Used in Oncology. Journal of the American Medical Association 282(October 20): 1453–1457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Krimsky, S. (2003) Science in the Private Interest. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Colborn, T., D. Dumanoski, and J. Myers. (1996) Our Stolen Future. Dutton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Krimsky, S. (2000) Hormonal Chaos: The Scientific and Social Origins of the Environmental Endocrine Hypothesis. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Calabrese, E. and L. Baldwin (2003) Toxicology Rethinks Its Central Belief. Nature 421(13 February): 691–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Calabrese, E. and L. Baldwin (1998) Chemical Hormesis: Scientific Foundations. Texas Institute for the Advancement of Chemical Technology, College Station, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Calabrese, E. and L. Baldwin (1997) The Dose Determines the Stimulation (and Poison): Development of a Chemical Hormesis Database. International Journal of Toxicology 16: 545–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Calabrese, E. and L. Baldwin (2001) The Frequency of U-Shaped Dose Responses in the Toxicological Literature. Toxicological Sciences 62: 330–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Calabrese, E. (2001) Overcompensation Stimulation: A Mechanism for Hormetic Effects. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 31: 425–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Crump, K. (2001) Evaluating the Evidence for Hormesis: A Statistical Perspective. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 31: 669–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Elliott, K. (2000) A Case for Caution: An Evaluation of Calabrese and Baldwin’s Studies of Chemical Hormesis. Risk: Health, Safety, and Environment 11: 177–196.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jonas, W. (2001) A Critique of ‘The Scientific Foundations of Hormesis’. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 31: 625–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Menzie, C. (2001) Hormesis in Ecological Risk Assessment: A Useful Concept, a Confusing Term, and/or a Distraction? Human and Experimental Toxicology 20: 521–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rodricks, J. (2003) Hormesis and Toxicological Risk Assessment. Toxicological Sciences 71: 134–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gerber, L., G. Williams, and S. Gray (1999) The Nutrient-Toxin Dosage Continuum in Human Evolution and Modern Health. Quarterly Review of Biology 74: 273–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kaiser, J. (2003) Sipping from a Poisoned Chalice. Science 302(17 October): 376–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Elliott, K. (2000) Conceptual Clarification and Policy-Related Science: The Case of Chemical Hormesis. Perspectives on Science 8: 346–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Vichi, P. and T. Tritton (1989) Stimulation of Growth in Human and Murine Cells by Adriamycin. Cancer Research 49: 2679–2682.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Roberts, S. (2001) Another View of the Scientific Foundations of Hormesis. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 31: 631–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Thayer, K., R. Melnick, K. Burns, D. Davis, and J. Huff (2005) Fundamental Flaws of Hormesis for Public Health Decisions. Environmental Health Perspectives 113: 1271–1276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Davis, J. M. and W. Farland. (1998) Biological Effects of Low-Level Exposures: A Perspective from U.S. EPA Scientists. Environmental Health Perspectives 106:380–381.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Renn, O. (2002) Hormesis and Risk Communication. BELLE Newsletter 11: 2–24.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Beder, S. (2000), Global Spin, rev. ed. Chelsea Green, White River Junction, VT.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Fagin, D., M. Lavelle, and the Center for Public Integrity (1999) Toxic Deception, 2nd ed. Common Courage Press, Monroe, ME.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Markowitz, G. and D. Rosner (2002) Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution. University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Wargo, J. (1996) Our Children’s Toxic Legacy. Yale University Press, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina, 29208, Columbia, SC, USA

    Kevin C. Elliott

Authors
  1. Kevin C. Elliott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin C. Elliott.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Elliott, K.C. An ethics of expertise based on informed consent. SCI ENG ETHICS 12, 637–661 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0062-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0062-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation