Abstract
The study of bioethics has always been conducted by multiple disciplines. However the interaction between these disciplines has sometimes been marked by division, discord and disagreement, especially so between philosophically and sociologically minded contributors. This has been particularly true in recent years, and post the ‘empirical turn’ in bioethics. In our introduction we trace these disagreements and then take a wider look at the nature of disciplines and of interdisciplinary relations. These considerations are then brought back to the disciplines that contribute work to bioethics as an explanation of why relationships within the field are difficult, and how we can start to address these divides.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Subsequently, this introduction focuses on sociology rather than history or anthropology. In part this is because the clash between sociological and philosophical approaches is the one that is most obvious in the field of bioethics. It is also because the essays in this collection are primarily sociological in focus. However, it should also be read as a short hand for broader perspectives, including those of anthropology and history, in much the same way that Social Studies of Science (SSS) might be equated with Science and Technology Studies (STS). Whilst the latter more obviously includes anthropological and historical work, it would misguided to think that the former excludes them; both of are interdisciplinary fields regardless of the nomenclature used to refer to them. The same can be said of interdisciplinary bioethics as well as the travails of sociology both in and of bioethics.
- 2.
On the relatively positivist inclinations or presumptions underpinning the relationship between medical law and philosophical bioethics, see: Harrington (2017).
- 3.
The recently resurgent fields of the sociology of morality and the anthropology of ethics offer further demonstration of this point. The viability of this work is independent of moral philosophy or applied ethics and whilst some of this work directly draws on virtue ethics, the theoretical dimension is fully anthropological, rather than philosophical (cf Laidlaw 2013).
- 4.
The fact that there is an affinity between the disciplinary ethos of analytic philosophy and the natural sciences is not refuted by Glock’s conclusion; that the ‘scientific spirit’ of analytic philosophy cannot provide a basis with which to define the field or the discipline (2008: 163).
- 5.
We leave the nature of transdisciplinarity, and any differences between this and interdisciplinarity, particularly in bioethics, to one side.
- 6.
We use the terms ‘enlightenment’ and ‘post-enlightenment’ in preference to the more common ‘modern’ and ‘post-modern.’ This is largely due to a widespread misunderstanding of these latter terms as well as the reflex reaction they often prompt amongst those who labour under such misapprehensions.
- 7.
This is not, of course, to suggest that all those working within these fields have made such a transition. Rather it is to point out that the advent of post-structuralism opens up space for interdisciplinary work that was not previously possible. There is, we would suggest, some degree of correspondence between disciplinarity and structuralism, on the one hand, and interdisciplinarity and post-structuralism on the other.
- 8.
The most common claim is that they are philosophers who work within some combination of moral philosophy, metaethics, and applied ethics. However, we have also encountered those who consider themselves to be political philosophers. Our point here is not to deny these claims, merely to point out that they are taken up in preference to and, therefore, in rejection to being thought of as a bioethicist. Indeed, the claim that they are philosophers, rather than applied ethicists, is itself significant.
- 9.
In the US there is a further division between those who pursue bioethics as an academic endeavor and those who pursue it in a professional capacity, working within hospitals and offering clinical ethics consultations.
- 10.
That said, the particulars of the field of bioethics, and the way it lays claim to individuals, are an important aspect of this dynamic. By way of comparison, consider the field of business ethics. Like bioethics, scholars from a range of disciplinary backgrounds contribute to the literature on the subject. However few, if any, consider business ethics to be a particular inter/discipline or even a specific (intellectual, which is to say, social) field, as opposed to a subject or topic. Indeed, the most significant book on the topic in recent years is a work of sociological history (Abend 2014). Thus, debate about the ‘correct’ way to approach the subject, or how critical sociological investigations should be related to the normative work of applied ethics, is far less pronounced than it is in bioethical literature.
- 11.
A major factor in the production of this dynamic has been the fact that many individuals working in these areas have found employment within medical schools, or centers for biomedical ethics attached to faculties of medicine and the biological sciences, rather than in departments of philosophy, history, sociology and anthropology. In this context, appealing to the norms of ones field is part of justifying ones work and its value, particularly in the face of assessment exercises – such as the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) – and in applications for (internal) promotion. Obviously the narratives and, in particular, the metrics, associated with such endeavours are a major component of this.
- 12.
We express this thought in these terms as we consider the idea that because there is a (bio)ethical dimension to (medical) practice does not make all those engaged in such practices a (bio)ethicist to be misguided. At minimum what is required is a certain degree of reflective and analytic engagement with the ethical dimension of practice if aspects of that practice are to be considered as rising to the level of bioethics.
- 13.
Of course, culturally speaking, this would not be an unusual state of affairs, even when it comes to moral matters. In the past theologians and priests could have been cast as those with privileged access to morality.
- 14.
The term bioethics was independently coined at least three times, the first of which took place in Germany, in 1927, and was by Fritz Jahr (Sass 2008; Jahr 1927). Subsequently, both Andre Hellegers and Van Rensselaer Potter coined the term circa 1970, meaning that the birth of American bioethics was ‘bi-located’ (Jonsen 1998: 27; Reich 1994, 1995). In all three cases, the vision for the field of bioethics was broader than the way the field is understood today.
References
Abend, G. 2014. The Moral Background: An Inquiry into the History of Business Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2009. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borry, P., P. Schotsmans, and K. Dierickx. 2005. The Birth of the Empirical Turn in Bioethics. Bioethics 19 (1): 49–71.
Bosk, C.L. 2001. Irony, Ethnography, and Informed Consent. In Bioethics in Social Context, ed. B.C. Hoffmaster, 199–220. Temple University Press: Philadelphia.
———. 2009. What Would You Do?: Juggling Bioethics and Ethnography. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Brody, H. 2009. The Future of Bioethics. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Callard, F., and D. Fitzgerald. 2015. Rethinking Interdisciplinarity Across the Social Sciences and Neurosciences. London: Palgrave Pivot.
Chang, H. 2004. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corrigan, O. 2003. Empty Ethics: The Problem with Informed Consent. Sociology of Health and Illness 25 (7): 768–792.
DeVries, R., and P. Conrad. 1998. Why Bioethics Needs Sociology. In Bioethics and Society, ed. R. DeVries and J. Subedi, 233–257. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
de Vries, R., L. Turner, K. Orfali, and C. Bosk. 2006. Social Science and Bioethics: The Way Forward. Sociology of Health & Illness 28 (6): 665–577.
De Wachter, M.A. 1982. Interdisciplinary Bioethics: But Where Do We Start? A Reflection of Epochè as Method. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 7 (3): 275–287.
Emmerich, N. 2015a. What Is Bioethics? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18 (3): 437–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-015-9628-7.
———. 2015b. A Sociological Analysis of Ethical Expertise: The Case of Medical Ethics. SAGE Open 5 (2): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015590445.
———. 2016. A Sociological Analysis of Ethical Expertise: The Case of Bioethics. Cogent Social Sciences 2 (1): 1143599. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1143599.
Fox, R.C., and J.P. Swazey. 1984. Medical Morality Is Not Bioethics: Medical Ethics in China and the United States. Perspectives in Biological Medicine 27 (3): 336–360.
Frickel, S., M. Albert, and B. Prainsack, eds. 2016. Investigating Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Theory and Practice Across Disciplines. New Bruswick: Rutgers University Press.
Frith, L., A. Jacoby, and M. Gabbay. 2011. Ethical Boundary-work in the Infertility Clinic. Sociology of Health & Illness 33 (4): 570–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2010.01308.x.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman S., Scott P., Trow M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
Gillon, R. 2003. Ethics Needs Principles—four Can Encompass the Rest—and Respect for Autonomy Should Be ‘First among Equals. Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (5): 307–312.
Glock, H.J. 2008. What is analytic philosophy? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glock, H.J. 2011. Doing Good by Splitting Hairs? Analytic Philosophy and Applied Ethics. Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (3): 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2011.00538.x.
Goldenberg, M.J. 2005. Evidence-Based Ethics? On Evidence-Based Practice and the ‘Empirical Turn’ from Normative Bioethics. BMC Medical Ethics 6 (1): 11.
Haimes, E. 2002. What Can the Social Sciences Contribute to the Study of Ethics? Theoretical, Empirical and Substantive Considerations. Bioethics 16 (2): 89–113.
Harrington, J. 2017. Towards a Rhetoric of medical law: Against ethics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hedgecoe, A.M. 2001. Ethical Boundary Work: Geneticization, Philosophy and the Social Sciences. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4 (3): 305–309.
———. 2004. Critical Bioethics: Beyond the Social Science Critique of Applied Ethics. Bioethics 18 (2): 120–143.
Hoeyer, K. 2006. ‘Ethics Wars’: Reflections on the Antagonism Between Bioethicists and Social Science Observers of Biomedicine. Human Studies 29 (2): 203–227.
Hoffmaster, B. 1992. Can Ethnography Save the Life of Medical Ethics. Social Science and Medicine 35 (12): 1421–1431.
Holm, S. 1995. Not Just Autonomy—the Principles of American Biomedical Ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 21 (6): 332–338.
Humphreys, S.J. 2008. The Sociology of Bioethics: The ‘Is’ and the ‘Ought. Research Ethics Review 4 (2): 47–51.
Hurst, S. 2010. What ‘empirical turn in bioethics’? Bioethics 24 (8): 439–444.
Ives, J. 2014. A method of reflexive balancing in a pragmatic. Interdisciplinary and Reflexive Bioethics. Bioethics 28 (6): 302–312.
Ives, J., M. Dunn, and A. Cribb, eds. 2016. Empirical Bioethics: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2017. Theoretical Perspectives: An Introduction. In Empirical Bioethics: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives, ed. J. Ives, M. Dunn, and A. Cribb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jacobs, J.A., and S. Frickel. 2009. Interdisciplinarity: A Critical Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 35 (1): 43–65. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115954.
Jahr, F. 1927. Bioethik: Eine Übersicht Der Ethik Und Der Beziehung Des Menschen Mit Tieren Und Pflanzen. Kosmos 24: 21–32.
Jonsen, A.R. 1998. The Birth of Bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kleinman, A. 1999. Moral Experience and Ethical Reflection: Can Ethnography Reconcile Them? A Quandary for “The New Bioethics”. Daedalus 128 (4): 69–97.
Kolodny, N. 1996. The Ethics of Cryptonormativism: A Defense of Foucault’s Evasions. Philosophy & Social Criticism 22 (5): 63–84.
Laidlaw, J. 2013. The Subject of Virtue: An Anthropology of Ethics and Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, L.M. 2017. A Bridge Back to the Future: Public Health Ethics, Bioethics, and Environmental Ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics 17 (9): 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1353164.
Legg, S. 2011. Assemblage/Apparatus: Using Deleuze and Foucault. Area 43 (2): 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01010.x.
Lopez, J. 2004. How Sociology Can Save Bioethics... Maybe. Sociology of Health and Illness 26 (7): 875–896.
Miller, F.G. 2017. Challenging the Conventional Wisdom: From Philosophy to Bioethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 60 (1): 3–18.
Nissani, M. 1997. Ten Cheers for Interdisciplinarity: The Case for Interdisciplinary Knowledge and Research. The Social Science Journal 34 (2): 201–216.
Paton, A. 2017. No Longer ‘Handmaiden’: The Role of Social and Sociological Theory in Bioethics. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 10 (1): 30–49.
Pickersgill, M. 2013. From ‘Implications’ to ‘Dimensions’: Science, Medicine and Ethics in Society. Health Care Analysis 21 (1): 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-012-0219-y.
Rapp, R. 1988. Moral Pioneers. Women & Health 13 (1–2): 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v13n01_09.
Reich, W.T. 1994. The Word “Bioethics”: Its Birth and the Legacies of Those Who Shaped It. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 4 (4): 319–335.
———. 1995. The Word Bioethics: The Struggle Over Its Earliest Meanings. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5 (1): 19–34.
Riesch, H. 2014. Philosophy, History and Sociology of Science: Interdisciplinary Relations and Complex Social Identities. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 48: 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.09.013.
———. 2015. Citizen Science. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, ed. J.D. Wright, vol. 3, 2nd ed., 631–636. Oxford: Elsevier.
Rose, N., and C. Novas. 2005. Biological Citizenship. In Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems, ed. A. Ong and S.J. Collier, 439–463. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sass, H. 2008. Fritz Jahr’s 1927 Concept of Bioethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 17 (4): 279–295.
Schrag, Z.M. 2010. Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965–2009. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Van Den Hoonaard, W.C. 2011. The Seduction of Ethics: Transforming the Social Sciences. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Wainwright, S.P., C. Williams, M. Michael, B. Farsides, and A. Cribb. 2006. Ethical Boundary-Work in the Embryonic Stem Cell Laboratory. Sociology of Health & Illness 28 (6): 732–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2006.00539.x.
Walters, L. 2003. The Birth and Youth of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics. In The Story of Bioethics: from Seminal Works to Contemporary Explorations, ed. J.K. Walter and E.P. Klein. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Wellmon, C. 2015. Organizing Enlightenment: Information Overload and the Invention of the Modern Research University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Williams, C., J. Sandall, G. Lewando-Hundt, B. Heyman, K. Spencer, and R. Grellier. 2005. Women as Moral Pioneers? Experiences of First Trimester Antenatal Screening. Social Science & Medicine 61 (9): 1983–1992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.004.
Acknowledgements
This collection arose from a one-day workshop held at Brunel University London in May 2013. Thanks are due to the Wellcome Trust funded LABTEC project and, in particular, to Professor Clare Williams for supporting that workshop, financially and morally, and Erika Mansnerus for helping with the organisation. Thanks also to Gabby Samuel and John Gardner for helping with an early draft of this introduction. Special acknowledgement, finally, to Amanda Rohloff who helped with the organisation of the early stages of the workshop but sadly passed away before it was held – this volume is dedicated to her memory.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Riesch, H., Emmerich, N., Wainwright, S. (2018). Introduction: Crossing the Divides. In: Riesch, H., Emmerich, N., Wainwright, S. (eds) Philosophies and Sociologies of Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92738-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92738-1_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92737-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92738-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)