Facilitating Ethical Reflection Among Scientists Using the Ethical Matrix

Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):425-445 (2011)
Several studies have indicated that scientists are likely to have an outlook on both facts and values that are different to that of lay people in important ways. This is one significant reason it is currently believed that in order for scientists to exercise a reliable ethical reflection about their research it is necessary for them to engage in dialogue with other stakeholders. This paper reports on an exercise to encourage a group of scientists to reflect on ethical issues without the presence of external stakeholders. It reports on the use of a reflection process with scientists working in the area of animal disease genomics (mainly drawn from the EADGENE EC Network of Excellence). This reflection process was facilitated by using an ethical engagement framework, a modified version of the Ethical Matrix. As judged by two criteria, a qualitative assessment of the outcomes and the participants’ own assessment of the process, this independent reflective exercise was deemed to be successful. The discussions demonstrated a high level of complexity and depth, with participants demonstrating a clear perception of uncertainties and the context in which their research operates. Reflection on stakeholder views and values appeared to be embedded within the discussions. The finding from this exercise seems to indicate that even without the involvement of the wider stakeholder community, valuable reflection and worthwhile discourse can be generated from ethical reflection processes involving only scienitific project partners. Hence, the previous assumption that direct stakeholder engagement is necessary for ethical reflection does not appear to hold true in all cases; however, other reasons for involving a broad group of stakeholders relating to governance and social accountability of science remain
Keywords Animal disease genomics  Ethics  Ethical matrix  Ethical reflection  Stakeholder engagement  Participatory methods
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11948-010-9218-2
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 31,334
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
A Plea to Implement Robustness Into a Breeding Goal: Poultry as an Example.L. Star, E. D. Ellen, K. Uitdehaag & F. W. A. Brom - 2008 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (2):109-125.
A Plea to Implement Robustness Into a Breeding Goal: Poultry as an Example.L. Star, E. Ellen, K. Uitdehaag & F. Brom - 2008 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (2):109-125.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Evaluating Ethical Tools.Payam Moula & Per Sandin - 2015 - Metaphilosophy 46 (2):263-279.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index

Total downloads
150 ( #35,609 of 2,225,299 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #248,925 of 2,225,299 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature