Facilitating Ethical Reflection Among Scientists Using the Ethical Matrix
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
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.
- England, G., & Millar, K. (2008). The ethics and role of AI with fresh and frozen semen in dogs. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 43(2), 165–171. CrossRef
- Forsberg, E.-M. (2007a). A deliberative ethical matrix method—Justification of moral advice on genetic engineering in food production. Dr. Art. Dissertation. Oslo, Unipub.
- Forsberg, E.-M. (2007b). Report from a value workshop on GM Rapeseed. In W. Zollitsch, C. Winkler, S. Waiblinger, & A. Haslberger (Eds.), Sustainable food production and ethics (pp. 442–449). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
- Kaiser, M. (2005). Assessing ethics and animal welfare in animal biotechnology for farm production. OiE review. Revue Scientifique Et Technique Office International Des Epizooties, 24, 75–87.
- Lassen, J., Madsen, K. H., & Sandoe, P. (2002). Ethics and genetic engineering—lessons to be learned from GM foods. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering, 24(5), 263–271. CrossRef
- Mepham, B., Kaiser, M., Thorstensen, E., Tomkins, S., & Millar, K. (2006). Ethical matrix manual. The Hague: LEI.
- Meyer, G., Gamborg, C., & Sandøe, P. (2005a). A study of ethical and societal issues. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment.
- Meyer, G., Gamborg, C., & Sandøe, P. (2005b). Ethical deliberation: Principles. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment.
- Millar, K., & Mepham, B. (2001). Bioethical analysis of biotechnologies: Lessons from automatic milking systems (AMS) and bovine somatotrophin (bST). In C. M. Wathes, A. R. Frost, F. Gordon, & J. D. Wood (Eds.), Occasional publication number 28 (pp. 29–36). Edinburgh: British Society of Animal Science.
- Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan.
- Star, L., Ellen, E. D., Uitdehaag, K., & Brom, F. W. A. (2008). A plea to implement robustness into a breeding goal: Poultry as an example. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 109–125. CrossRef
- Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? In S. M. Lash, M. B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity (pp. 44–83). London: Sage.
- Facilitating Ethical Reflection Among Scientists Using the Ethical Matrix
Science and Engineering Ethics
Volume 17, Issue 3 , pp 425-445
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Animal disease genomics
- Ethical matrix
- Ethical reflection
- Stakeholder engagement
- Participatory methods
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958, Frederiksberg C, Denmark
- 2. Work Research Institute, P.O. Box 6954, St. Olavs plass, 0130, Oslo, Norway
- 3. Centre for Applied Bioethics, School of Biosciences, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Sutton Bonington, LE12 5RD, UK