Abstract
Integrative bioethics is an innovative concept and project in the field of bioethics, which gathers various scientific approaches (multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity) and cultural approaches (pluriperspectivity) to the ethical issues of life and current life manipulations in the global technological society. It covers a broad spectrum of topics—from clinical medical practice and biomedical research, through human-animal relationships, to global-ecological problems. By doing so, integrative bioethics opposes any scientific and cultural reductionism and criticizes the regimes of total power over knowledge and life (represented by ruling models of techno-science, the economy, politics and media), which is the point where integrative bioethics meets “biopolitical theory”, on one hand, and the concept of “knowledge landscapes”, on the other hand. However, integrative bioethics not only addresses general questions on the nature of knowledge and science but also represents a solid framework for discussion on the specific issues from the fields of biomedical research, clinical medicine and healthcare, which become more and more complex in the context of the digital society, and what health agency means here. Integrative bioethics requires answers oriented towards theoretical, that is, scientific goals (knowledge of particular sciences and knowledge as an entirety of all the sciences); practical, that is, ethical, political and economic goals (background of the actions); and technical, that is, medical, biotechnological and information-technological goals (performing the actions). Drawing on works from “integrative bioethics” (e.g. Čović and Hoffmann, 2007; Jurić, 2017), “biopolitical theory” (e.g. Foucault, 2008; Agamben, 1998) and the exploration of “knowledge landscapes” (e.g. Svalastog et al., 2017; Gajović and Svalastog, 2016; Svalastog et al., 2015), this chapter will consider different aspects of the question of how the conceptual framework of integrative bioethics and its methodology can be applied in the context of the digital society, including the challenges of managing information that contributes towards knowledge and health.
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
Notes
- 1.
In this context Vanja Borš’ reference has to be understood as an explication on the interactions of diverse perspectives. When different perspectives meet, more than often they carry a presupposition on truthfulness of their claims (definitions, theories and so on), but it is not possible for all of them to be true. Therefore, pluriperspectivism is a methodological process, a dialectic, that analyses all of the perspectives linked to problem resolution and produces a truth that is not restricted by a monoperspective point of view.
- 2.
For example, biomedical and ecological issues, ranging from cloning, Human Genome Project and CRISPR/Cas9 technology, through GM technology in agriculture and “biopiracy” (Shiva 1997), to climate issues and nuclear technology.
- 3.
A perfect summary of this problem and its implications can be found in Günther Anders who said “The basic dilemma of our age is that ‘we are smaller than ourselves’, incapable of mentally realizing the realities which we ourselves have produced. Therefore, we might call ourselves ‘inverted Utopians’: while ordinary Utopians are unable to actually produce what they are able to visualize, we are unable to visualize what we are actually producing” (Anders 1962: 496).
References
Ackoff, R. L. (1999). Ackoff’s best. New York: Wiley.
Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Anders, G. (1962). Theses for the atomic age. The Massachusetts Review, 3(3), 493–505.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1979). Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Borš, V. (2016). Istinitost kao bakantski zanos: uloga i važnost pluriperspektivizma u Hegelovoj misli. Filozofska istraživanja, 36(4), 775–785.
Čović, A. (2004). Etika i bioetika: Razmišljanja na pragu bioetičke epohe. Zagreb: Pergamena.
Čović, A. (2005). Bioethik unter den Bedingungen des Postkommunismus – Fallbeispiel Kroatien. In A. Čović & T. S. Hoffman (Eds.), Bioethik und kulturelle Pluralität. Die südosteuropäische Perspektive (pp. 148–172). Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag.
Čović, Ante Pluralizam i pluriperspektivizam, Filozofska istraživanja, Vol. 26 (2006), 1, pp. 7–12.
Čović, A. (2017). The Europeanization of bioethics: Opportunities for integrative ethical reflection on the basis of intra-cultural differences in Europe. Facta Universitatis, 15(2), 111–114.
Čović, A., & Hoffmann, T. S. (2007) Bioethik und kulturelle Pluralitet. Filozofska istraživanja 107(3), 738–742.
Foucault, M. (1973). The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception. London/New York: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1979). The history of sexuality, volume 1: An introduction. London: Allen Lane.
Foucault, M. (1988). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason. New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality, volume 3: The Care of the Self. London: Penguin Books.
Foucault, M. (1992). The history of sexuality, volume 2: The use of pleasure. London: Penguin Books.
Foucault, M. (2002a). Archaeology of knowledge. London/New York: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (2002b). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. London/New York: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978–79. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fox Keller, Evelyn. (2003). Making sense of life: Explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines. London: Harvard University Press.
Gajović, S., & Svalastog, A. L. (2016). When communicating health-related knowledge, beware of the black holes of the knowledge landscapes geography. Croatian Medical Journal 57(5), 504–509.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.
Illich, I. (1975). Tools for conviviality. Glasgow: Fontana.
Jurić, H. (2012). Multi-disciplinarity, pluri-perspectivity and integrativity in the science and the education. The Holistic Approach to Environment, 2(2), 85–90.
Jurić, H. (2017). The footholds of an integrative bioethics in the work of Van Rensselaer Potter. Facta Universitatis 15(2), 127–144.
Knoppers, B., & Chadwick, R. (2005). Human genetic research: Emerging trends in ethics. Nature Review Genetics, 6(6), 75–79.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lloyd, A. (2006). Information literacy landscapes: An emerging picture. Journal of Documentation, 62(5), 570–583.
Lloyd, A. (2010). Information literacy landscape: Information literacy in education, workplace and everyday context. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
Lloyd, A., Bonner, A., & Dawson-Rose, C. (2014). The health information practices of people living with chronic health conditions: Implications for health literacy. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 46(3), 207–216.
Mittelstraß, J. (1982). Wissenschaft als Lebensform: Reden über philosophische Orientierungen in Wissenschaft und Universität. Frankfurt a/M: Suhrkamp.
Moran, B. B., Stueart, R. D., & Morner, C. J. (2007). Library and information center management. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited.
Pavić, Ž. (2014). ‘Pluriperspektivizam’ – slučaj jedne natuknice u Filozofskome leksikonu. Filozofska istraživanja, 34(4), 577–600.
Potter, V. R. (1971). Bioethics: Bridge to the future. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Potter, V. R. (1988). Global bioethics: Building on the Leopold legacy. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Potthast, T. (2008). Bioethik als inter- und transdisziplinäre Unternehmung. In C. Brand, E.-M. Engels, A. Ferrari, & L. Kovács (Eds.), Wie funktioniert Bioethik? Interdisziplinäre Entscheidungsfindung im Spannungsfeld von theoretischem Begründungsanspruch und praktischem Regelungsbedarf (pp. 255–280). Paderborn: Mentis.
Sass, H. M. (2004). Asian and Western bioethics: Converging, conflicting, competing. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics, 14, 12–22.
Svalastog A. L., Allgaier, J., & Gajović, S. (2015). Navigating knowledge landscapes: on health, science, communication, media, and society. Croatian Medical Journal 56(4), 321–323.
Schildknecht, C. (2008). Argument und Einsicht: Orientierungswissen als Begründungswissen. In W. Stegmaier (Ed.), Orientierung: Philosophische Perspektiven (pp. 138–152). Frankfurt a/M: Suhrkamp.
Shiva, V. (1997). Biopiracy: The plunder of nature and knowledge. Cambridge: South End Press.
Svalastog, A. L., Allgaier, J., Martinelli, L., & Gajović, S. (2014). Distortion, confusion, and impasses: Could a public dialogue within knowledge landscapes contribute to better communication and understanding of innovative knowledge? Croatian Medical Journal, 55(1), 54–60.
Svalastog, A. L., Donev, D., Jahren Kristoffersen, N., & Gajović, S. (2017). Concepts and definitions of health and health-related values in the knowledge landscapes of the digital society. Croatian Medical Journal 58(6), 431–435.
Taylor, C., & Dewsbury, B. M. (2018). On the problem and promise of metaphor use in science and science communication. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 19(1).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kos, D., Kos, M., Jurić, H. (2021). Integrative Bioethics and Knowledge Landscapes. In: Svalastog, A.L., Gajović, S., Webster, A. (eds) Navigating Digital Health Landscapes. Health, Technology and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8206-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8206-6_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-8205-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-8206-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)