Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (11):698-701 (2011)
Abstract |
Citizens today are increasingly expected to be knowledgeable about and prepared to engage with biomedical knowledge. In this article, I wish to reframe this ‘public understanding of science’ project, and place fresh emphasis on public understandings of research: an engagement with the everyday laboratory practices of biomedicine and its associated ethics, rather than with specific scientific facts. This is not based on an assumption that non-scientists are ‘ignorant’ and are thus unable to ‘appropriately’ use or debate science; rather, it is underpinned by an empirically-grounded observation that some individuals may be unfamiliar with certain specificities of particular modes of research and ethical frameworks, and, as a consequence, have their autonomy compromised when invited to participate in biomedical investigations. Drawing on the perspectives of participants in my own sociological research on the social and ethical dimensions of neuroscience, I argue that public understanding of biomedical research and its ethics should be developed both at the community level and within the research moment itself in order to enhance autonomy and promote more socially robust science. Public bioethics will have to play a key role in such an endeavour, and indeed will contribute in important ways to the opening up of new spaces of symmetrical engagement between bioethicists, scientists and wider publics—and hence to the democratisation of the bioethical enterprise
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1136/jme.2010.041954 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
False Hopes and Best Data: Consent to Research and the Therapeutic Misconception.Paul S. Appelbaum, Loren H. Roth, Charles W. Lidz, Paul Benson & William Winslade - 1987 - Hastings Center Report 17 (2):20-24.
Tweeting Science and Ethics: Social Media as a Tool for Constructive Public Engagement.Alan C. Regenberg - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (5):30-31.
Empty Ethics: The Problem with Informed Consent.Oonagh Corrigan - 2003 - Sociology of Health & Illness 25 (3):768-792.
Citations of this work BETA
Meeting the Needs of Underserved Populations: Setting the Agenda for More Inclusive Citizen Science of Medicine.Amelia Fiske, Barbara Prainsack & Alena Buyx - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (9):617-622.
From 'Implications' to 'Dimensions': Science, Medicine and Ethics in Society. [REVIEW]Martyn D. Pickersgill - 2013 - Health Care Analysis 21 (1):31-42.
Adolescent Research Participants' Descriptions of Medical Research.Christine Grady, Isabella Nogues, Lori Wiener, Benjamin S. Wilfond & David Wendler - 2016 - Ajob Empirical Bioethics 7 (1):1-7.
Elective Ventilation and the Politics of Death.Nathan Emmerich - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (3):153-157.
Focusing on Cause or Cure? Priorities and Stakeholder Presence in Childhood Psychiatry Research.Lauren C. Milner & Mildred K. Cho - 2014 - Ajob Empirical Bioethics 5 (1):44-55.
View all 7 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
The Broad Challenge of Public Engagement in Science.Rinie Est - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):639-648.
The Broad Challenge of Public Engagement in Science: Commentary On: “Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology”.Rinie van Est - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):639-648.
Local Dialogue Heard Around the World.Susan Collins, Michael Kersey & Cindy Savage - 2007 - World Futures 63 (5 & 6):353 – 364.
The "Nation's Conscience:" Assessing Bioethics Commissions as Public Forums.Albert W. Dzur & Daniel Lessard Levin - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (4):333-360.
Stem Cell-Based Therapies: Promises, Obstacles, Discordance, and the Agora.Kathleen K. Eggleson - 2012 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 55 (1):1-25.
Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in Debates About Nanotechnologies.Renee Kyle & Susan Dodds - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):81-96.
Taking Our Own Medicine: On an Experiment in Science Communication.Maja Horst - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):801-815.
Publics in the Making: Mediating Different Methods of Engagement and the Publics These Construct: Commentary On: “Technologies of Democracy: Experiments and Demonstrations”. [REVIEW]Alison Mohr - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):667-672.
Lab Work Goes Social, and Vice Versa: Strategising Public Engagement Processes: Commentary On: “What Happens in the Lab Does Not Stay in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory”.Brian Wynne - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):791-800.
Is Science Socially Constructed—and Can It Still Inform Public Policy?Sheila Jasanoff - 1996 - Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (3):263-276.
Religion and Bioethics: Can We Talk? [REVIEW]William E. Stempsey - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (4):339-350.
Multiple Roles and Successes in Public Bioethics: A Response to the Public Forum Critique of Bioethics Commissions.Summer Johnson - 2006 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 16 (2):173-188.
Tweeting Science and Ethics: Social Media as a Tool for Constructive Public Engagement.Alan C. Regenberg - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (5):30-31.
Understanding Socially Responsible Investing: The Effect of Decision Frames and Trade-Off Options. [REVIEW]Katherina Glac - 2009 - Journal of Business Ethics 87 (1):41 - 55.
Public Engagement and Bioethics Commissions.Thomas H. Murray & Ross S. White - 2010 - In John Elliott, W. Calvin Ho & Sylvia S. N. Lim (eds.), Bioethics in Singapore: The Ethical Microcosm. World Scientific.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2011-10-19
Total views
19 ( #537,764 of 2,412,038 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #538,761 of 2,412,038 )
2011-10-19
Total views
19 ( #537,764 of 2,412,038 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #538,761 of 2,412,038 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads