Abstract
Much has been written in the last decade about how we should understand the value of the sociology of bioethics. Increasingly the value of the sociology of bioethics is interpreted by its advocates directly in terms of its relationship to bioethics. It is claimed that the sociology of bioethics (and related disciplinary approaches) should be seen as an important component of work in bioethics. In this paper we wish to examine whether, and how, the sociology of bioethics can be defended as a valid and justified research activity, in the context of debates about the nature of bioethics. We begin by presenting and arguing for an account of bioethics that does justice to the content of the field, the range of questions that belong within this field, and the justificatory standards (and methodological orientations) that can provide convincing answers to these questions. We then consider the role of sociology in bioethics and show how and under what conditions it can contribute to answering questions within bioethics. In the final section, we return to the sociology of bioethics to show that it can make only a limited contribution to the field.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Nothing hangs on this definition of a discipline. It seems plausibly to us as a way of picking out a set of activities that are connected by methodologies, traditions of thought and institutions, perhaps in the service of answering a set of questions. We are interested in separating this set of activities (a discipline, here) from a set of activities that are connected by the consideration of a set of questions only (a field, here).
The ‘social constructionist’ turn within the social sciences over the last half a century would question the validity and viability of all ‘bottom-up’ approaches. The argument here is that empirical data can only offer a construction (rather than reflection) of social reality because these data always reflect the historically, socially and culturally embedded values of the researcher, and the contingencies and complexities of the interactions between the researcher and his/her participants (see, for example, [8]. For the purposes of our argument here, accepting this constructionist claim means that the problems we have identified with connecting ‘bottom-up’ empirical explanation with practical ‘ought’ questions should be reclassified as equivalent to those problems we identify with the ‘top-down’ empirical approach in the following paragraph.
References
Baker, R. (2002). Bioethics and history. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 27(4), 447–474.
Bosk, C. (1999). Professional ethicist available: Logical, secular, friendly. Daedelus, 128, 47–68.
Brosnan, C. (2011). The sociology of neuroethics: Expectational discourse and the rise of a new discipline. Sociology Compass, 5(4), 287–297.
de Vries, R. G. (2004). How can we help? From ‘sociology in’ to ‘sociology of’ bioethics. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 32(2), 279–292.
de Vries, R. G. (2005). Framing neuroethics: A sociological assessment of the neuroethical imagination. American Journal of Bioethics, 5(2), 25–27.
de Vries, R. G., & Kim, S. Y. H. (2008). Bioethics and the sociology of trust: Introduction to the theme. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 11, 377–379.
Draper, H., & Ives, J. (2007). An empirical approach to bioethics: Social science ‘of’, ‘for’ and ‘in’ bioethics. Cognition, Brain and Behaviour, 11(2), 319–330.
Dunn, M., & Ives, J. (2009). Methodology, epistemology and empirical bioethics research: A constructive/ist commentary. American Journal of Bioethics, 9(6–7), 93–95.
Dunn, M., Sheehan, M., Hope, T., & Parker, M. (2012). Towards methodological innovation in empirical ethics research. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 21(4), 466–480.
Flyvberg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garrard, E., & Wilkinson, S. (2005). Mind the gap: The use of empirical evidence in bioethics. In M. Häyri, T. Takala, & P. Herissone-Kelly (Eds.), Bioethics and social reality (pp. 77–92). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Haimes, E., & Williams, R. (2007). Sociology, ethics, and the priority of the particular: Learning from a case study of genetic deliberation. British Journal of Sociology, 58(3), 457–476.
Hedgecoe, A. (2010). Bioethics and the reinforcement of socio-technical expectations. Social Studies of Science, 40(2), 163–186.
Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, S. D. (2009). Unsimple truths: Science, complexity and policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Pickersgill, M. D. (2012). From ‘implications’ to ‘dimensions’: Science, medicine and ethics in society. Health Care Analysis. doi:10.1007/s10728-012-0219-y.
Rosenberg, C. (1999). Meanings, policies, and medicine: On the bioethical enterprise and history. Daedelus, 128, 27–46.
Turner, L. (2009). Anthropological and sociological critiques of bioethics. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 6, 83–98.
Turner, L. (2009). Bioethics and social studies of medicine: Overlapping concerns. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 18(1), 36–42.
Wilson, D. (2011). What can history do for bioethics? Bioethics. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01933.x.
Acknowledgments
Dr Mark Sheehan is supported by the Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sheehan, M., Dunn, M. On the Nature and Sociology of Bioethics. Health Care Anal 21, 54–69 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-012-0234-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-012-0234-z