Erratum to: Metascience (2009) 18:417–420 DOI 10.1007/s11016-009-9294-6

The following lines are wrong.

p. 417, Berry argues that the issues related to genetic engineering are ‘fractitious problems’, which means that they are generated by novel advances in science and technology, challenge our understanding, tap into our deep secular or religious beliefs, are of public concern, and are unavoidably divisive (pp. 1–2).

this should read:

Berry argues that the issues related to genetic engineering are ‘fractious problems’, which means that they are generated by novel advances in science and technology, challenge our understanding, tap into our deep secular or religious beliefs, are of public concern, and are unavoidably divisive (pp. 1–2).

pp. 417–418, Reductionist pluralists, such as utilitarians and deontologists, view ethical and policy issues as “amendable to similar methods of reduction and revolution, by calculation of risks and benefits or by application of principles establishing rights and duties (p. 4).”

should read:

Reductionist pluralists, such as utilitarians and deontologists, view ethical and policy issues as “amenable to similar methods of reduction and resolution, by calculation of risks and benefits or by application of principles establishing rights and duties (p. 4).”

p. 418, Berry argues that utilitarian approaches have “limited capacity to track the nature of fractitious problems, including those posed by the advent of genetic engineering” because they “rule out consideration of concerns that are not captured by any consideration of welfare (p. 74).”

should read

Berry argues that utilitarian approaches have “limited capacity to track the nature of fractious problems, including those posed by the advent of genetic engineering” because they “rule out consideration of concerns that are not captured by any conception of welfare (p. 74).”

p. 418, She argues that deontological approaches, like utilitarian ones, are not very adept at dealing with fractitious problems because they “cannot comprehend the nature or range of concerns that lie beyond the ken of rights and duties”, such as the status of the foetus, the nature of family relationships, and the concepts of disability and disease (pp. 118–119).

should read:

She argues that deontological approaches, like utilitarian ones, are not very adept at dealing with fractious problems because they “cannot comprehend the nature or range of concerns that lie beyond the ken of rights and duties”, such as the status of the foetus, the nature of family relationships, and the concepts of disability and disease (pp. 118–119).

p. 418, Berry argues that virtue ethics is better at dealing with fractitious problems than the other approaches, because it draws on “different ways of understanding these problems,” even though it does not “promise agreement or convergence on right answers (pp. 152–153).”

Should read:

Berry argues that virtue ethics is better at dealing with fractious problems than the other approaches, because it draws on “different ways of understanding these problems,” even though it does not “promise agreement or convergence on right answers (pp. 152–153).”