Skip to main content
Log in

Science in Touch: Functions of Biomedical Terminology

  • Published:
Biology and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scientists’ language use in communication to or with the public has often been criticised as merely strategic. This article explores three terms employed in stem cell and genomic research, to support the hypothesis that biomedical terminology is heavily influenced by different legal, cultural, and ethical backgrounds in different societies. The word ‘pre-embryo’ has never been part of any acceptable official rhetoric in Germany but was important in Britain. The ‘toti-’, ‘pluri-’, or ‘multipotency’ of specific stem cells became a topical issue of scientific expertise in countries with strict regulations on embryo research. The distinction between ‘reproductive’ and ‘therapeutic’ cloning has become very common but problematic due to its obvious strategic purpose, and is intensely debated in the scientific community. The examination of these examples and the cultural framework in which they gain importance will demonstrate the mutual interconnectedness of biomedical science and social and cultural conditions. Separation of a purely descriptive terminology that belongs to science itself, adequately describing its discoveries, and a rhetoric that addresses external, non-scientific attitudes is impossible. Regulations, social discourses, and cultural traditions influence biomedical sciences, their scientific research projects and the terminology employed therein. Biomedical practices are considered ethically problematic not only by those external to the scientific realms, but also by some professionals participating in the research. Biomedical science is not a discrete field with clear boundaries and has to be re-conceptualized as an integral and important part of modern culture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adorno T.W. and Horkheimer M. 1947. Die Dialektik der Aufklärung, Amsterdam; engl.: Dialectic of Enlightenment. Herder & HerderNew York 1972.

  2. A. Appadurai (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization University of Minnesota Press Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bahnsen U. 2003. Eierstock aus der Retorte’, Die Zeit20/2003. see: http://www.zeit.de/2003/20/Stammzellen.

  4. B. Barnes (1974) Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. London

    Google Scholar 

  5. H. Beier (1999) ArticleTitleDie Phänomene Totipotenz und Pluripotenz. Von der klassischen Embryologie zu neuen Therapiestrategien Reproduktionsmedizin 15 190–199

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beier H. 2002. Totipotenz und Pluripotenz. Von der klassischen Embryologie zu neuen Therapiestrategien. In: Oduncu F., Schroth R. and Vossenkuhl W. (eds), 2002, 36–54.

  7. Bender W. 2001. Unbestimmbarkeit des moralischen Status humaner embryonaler Stammzellen? Zu einigen ethischen Problemen. In: Platzer K. and Ho¨ rner V. (eds), Optionen fü r eine Medizin der Zukunft? Prä implantationsdiagnostik und Stammzellforschung, Vol. 6. Speyrer Texte, 54–65.

  8. Bender W. 2002. Ethische Aspekte und gesellschaftliche Folgen der Stammzellforschung. In: Hauskeller C.(eds.) 2002.

  9. Best R. and Kushf G. 2005. The Stem Cell Controversy in the United States: Scientific, Philosophical, Political and Theological Aspects. In: Bender W., Hauskeller C. and Manzei A.(eds.) Crossing Borders – kulturellepolitische und religiöse Differenzen betreffend die Stammzellforschung. agenda-Verlag, Münster.

  10. M. Black (1962) Models and Metaphors Cornell University Press IthacaNY

    Google Scholar 

  11. F.E. Bloom (1999) ArticleTitleBreakthroughs 1999 Science 286 2267

    Google Scholar 

  12. J.J. Bono (1995) The Word of God and the Languages of Man. Interpreting Nature in Early Modern Science and Medicine University of Wisconsin Press Madison

    Google Scholar 

  13. T.R. Brazelton F.M. Rossi G.I. Keshet H.M. Blau (2000) ArticleTitleFrom marrow to brain: Expression of neuronal phenotypes in adult mice Science 290 1775–1779 Occurrence Handle10.1126/science.290.5497.1775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Breuer C. 2001. Die moraltheologische Problematik der In-vitro-Fertilisation, talk published at: http://www.kath-theologie.uni-osnabrueck.de/kug/symposien.htm.

  15. T. Burdon et al. (1999) ArticleTitleSignaling mechanisms relating self-renewal and differentiation of pluripotent embryonic stem cells Cells Tissues Organs 165 131–141 Occurrence Handle10.1159/000016693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Denker H.W. 2002. Forschung and embryonalen Stammzellen. Eine Diskussion der Begriffe Totipotenz und Pluripotenz. In: Oduncu F., Schroth R. and Vossenkuhl W. (eds), 2002, 19–35.

  17. Department of Health 2004. Cloning Issues in Reproduction, Science and Medicine 1998. Http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/hgac/papers/papers_c.htm.

  18. DFG 1999. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. DFG-Stellungnahme zum Problemkreis humane embryonale Stammzellen. http://www.dfg.de/aktuelles_presse/reden_stellungnahmen/archiv/humane_embryonak_stammzellen.html.

  19. H. Driesch (1891) ArticleTitleEntwicklungsmechanische Studien I. Der Werth der beiden ersten Furchungszellen in der Echinodermenentwicklung. Experimentelle Erzeugung von Theil- und Doppelbildungen Zeitschrift wissenschaftliche Zoologie 53 160–184

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dupré J.A. 1993. The Disorder of Things. Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Harvard University Press.

  21. Epstein S. 1996. Impure Science, AIDS, Activism, And The Politics of Knowledge. University of California Press.

  22. L. Fleck (1935) Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache [L. Schäfer and T. Schnelle1999], New Edition Suhrkamp Verlag Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  23. Franklin S. 2003. Kinship, Genes, and Cloning. Life after Dolly. In: Goodman A.H., Heath D. and Lindee S. (eds). 2003.

  24. Fujimura J.H. 2003. Future Imagineries, Genome Scientists as Sociocultural Entrepreneurs. In: Goodman A.H., Heath D. and Lindee S. (eds). 2003.

  25. A.H. Goodmann D. Heath S. Lindee (Eds) (2003) Genetic Nature/Culture. Anthropology and Science beyond the Two-culture Divide University of California Press Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  26. Griffiths P. and Stotz K. 2003. Representing Genes Project. http://www.pitt.edu/ kstotz/genes/genes.html.

  27. C. Hauskeller (Eds) (2002) Humane Stammzellen. therapeutische Optionen, ökonomische Perspektiven, mediale Vermittlung Pabst Science Publishers Lengerich

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hauskeller C. 2004. How Traditions of Ethical Reasoning and Institutional Processes Shape Stem Cell Research in Britain. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Accepted for publication.

  29. M. Hesse (1966) Models and Analogies in Science Sheed and Ward London & New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. K. Hübner et al. (2003) ArticleTitleDerivation of oocytes from mouse embryonic stem cells Science 300 1251–1256

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kitcher P. 1984. Species. In: Kitcher P. (ed.), In Mendel's Mirror. Philosophical Reflections on Biology. Oxford University Press.

  32. G.C. Kopen D.J. Prockop D.G. Phinney (1999) ArticleTitleMarrow stromal cells migrate throughout forebrain and cerebellumand they differentiate into astrocystes after injection into neonatal mouse brains Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96 10711–10716 Occurrence Handle10.1073/pnas.96.19.10711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. C. Kummer (2000) ArticleTitleStammzellkulturen–ein brisantes Entwicklungspotential Stimmen der Zeit 218 547–554

    Google Scholar 

  34. G. Majo (2001) ArticleTitleDas Klonen im öffentlichen Diskurs. Über den Beitrag der Massenmedien zur Bioethikdiskussion Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik 47 33–52

    Google Scholar 

  35. Martin E. 1996. The egg and the sperm. How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male–female roles. In: Keller E. and Longino H. (eds), Feminism and Science. Oxford University Press.

  36. M. Mulkay (1979) Science and the Sociology of Knowledge Allen and Unwin London

    Google Scholar 

  37. M. Mulkay (1997) The embryo research debate University of Cambridge Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  38. NBAC 1999. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Ethical Issues in Human Stem cell ResearchVol. 1, Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission RockvilleMaryland: September 1999.

  39. F. Oduncu R. Schroth W. Vossenkuhl (Eds) (2002) Stammzellforschung und therapeutisches Klonen Vandenhoek und Ruprecht Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  40. M. Pesce et al. (1999) ArticleTitleLessons of totipotency from embryonic stem cells Cells Tissues Organs 165 144–152 Occurrence Handle10.1159/000016694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. PCB 2002. President's Council on Bioethics, Human Cloning and Human Dignity, Public Affairs, New York

  42. Pickstone J.V. 2000. Ways of Knowing. A New History of Science, Technology and Medicine. Manchester University Press.

  43. Rheinberger H.-J. 2000. Gene-concepts: fragments form the perspective of molecular biology. In: Beurton P., Falk R. and Rheinberger H.-J. (eds), The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. Historical and Epistemological Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.

  44. F. Seidel (1952) ArticleTitleDie Entwicklungspotenzen einer isolierten Blastomere des Zweizell-stadiums im Säugetierei Naturwissenschaften 39 355

    Google Scholar 

  45. S.L. Star J. Griesemer (1989) ArticleTitleInstitutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39 Soc. Stud. Sci. 19/3 387–420

    Google Scholar 

  46. B.J. Strasser (2003) ArticleTitleWho cares about the double helix? Collective memory links the past to the future in science as well as history Nature 422 803–804 Occurrence Handle10.1038/422803a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. J.A. Thomson et al. (1998) ArticleTitleEmbryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts Science 282 1145–1147 Occurrence Handle10.1126/science.282.5391.1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. G. Vogel (1999) ArticleTitleCapturing the promise of youth Science 286 2238–2239

    Google Scholar 

  49. B. Vogelstein B. Alberts K. Shine (2003) ArticleTitlePlease don’t call it cloning! Science 295 1237

    Google Scholar 

  50. Mary Warnock (1985) A Question of Life. The Warnock Report on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Basil Blackwell Ltd. Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  51. D. Woodbury E.J. Schwarz D.J. Prockop I.B. Black (2000) ArticleTitleAdult rat and human bone marrow stromal cells differentiate into neurons J. Neurosci. Res. 61 364–370 Occurrence Handle10.1002/1097-4547(20000815)61:4<364::AID-JNR2>3.0.CO;2-C

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wulff H.J. 2002. Zwischen Phantasie und Diskurs - Motive als Topoi in den Spielfilmen und journalistischen Texten der Gentechnik. In: Hauskeller C.(ed). 2002.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Hauskeller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hauskeller, C. Science in Touch: Functions of Biomedical Terminology. Biol Philos 20, 815–835 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-004-2280-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-004-2280-x

Key words

Navigation