Health Care Analysis

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 6–19 | Cite as

The Troubled Identity of the Bioethicist

Original Article


This paper raises questions about bioethical knowledge and the bioethical ‘expert’ in the context of contestation over methods. Illustrating that from the perspective of the development of bioethics, the lack of unity over methods is highly desirable for the field in bringing together a wealth of perspectives to bear on bioethical problems, that same lack of unity also raises questions as to the expert capacity of the ‘bioethicist’ to speak to contemporary bioethics and represent the field. Focusing in particular on public bioethics, the author argues that we need to rethink the concept of bioethicist, if not reject it. The concept of the bioethicist connotes a disciplinary or theoretical unity that is simply not present and from the perspective of public policy, it is incredibly misleading. Instead, bioethical expertise would be a capacity of a broader community, and not an individual. Such a conception of bioethics as an expert community rather than as an individual capacity, focuses our attention on the more functional question of what knowledge and skill set any individual possesses.


Bioethics Sociology Empirical insights Interdisciplinary Expertise Public bioethics Methods 


  1. 1.
    Adler, D., & Zlotnik Shaul, R. (2012). Disciplining bioethics: Towards a standard of methodological rigor in bioethics research. Accountability in Research, 19, 187–207.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Appiah, K. A. (2008). Experiments in ethics. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Archard, D. (2011). Why moral philosophers are not and should not be moral experts. Bioethics, 25, 119–127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baron, J. (2006). Against Bioethics. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bennett, R., & Cribb, A. (2003). The relevance of empirical research to bioethics: Reviewing the debate. In M. Häyry & T. Takala (Eds.), Scratching the surface of bioethics. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dawson, Angus. (2010). The future of bioethics: Three dogmas and a cup of hemlock. Bioethics, 24, 218–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Vries, R., & Gordijn, B. (2009). Empirical ethics and its alleged meta-ethical fallacies. Bioethics, 23, 193–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunn, M., Maughan, D., Hope, T., Canvin, K., Rugkåsa, J., Sinclair, J., & Burns, T. (2012). Threats and offers in community mental healthcare. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38, 204–209.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fox, R. C., Swazey, J. P., & Watkins, J. C. (2008). Observing bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frith, L. (2012). Symbiotic empirical ethics: A practical methodology. Bioethics, 26, 198–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galbraith, K. (2012). My problems with the ‘B’ word. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 21, 122–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harris, J. (2001). Introduction: The scope and importance of bioethics. In J. Harris (Ed.), Bioethics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Häyry, M. (2011). Rationality and the genetic challenge revisited. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 20, 468–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Häyry, M., & Takala, T. (2003). Scratching the Surface of Bioethics. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hedgecoe, A. (2004). Critical bioethics: Beyond the social science critique of applied ethics. Bioethics, 18(2), 120–143.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hedgecoe, A. (2010). Bioethics and the reinforcement of socio-technical expectations. Social Studies of Science, 40, 163–186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herrera, C. (2008). Is it time for bioethics to go empirical? Bioethics, 22, 137–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoffmaster, B., & Hooker, C. (2009). How experience confronts ethics. Bioethics, 25, 214–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoffmaster, B. Bioethics in social context (Temple University Press, 2001). Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hurst, S. (2010). What ‘Empirical Turn in Bioethics’? Bioethics, 24, 439–444.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ives, J., & Draper, H. (2009). Appropriate methodologies for empirical bioethics: It’s all relative. Bioethics, 23, 249–258.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ives, J., & Dunn, M. (2010). Who’s arguing? A call for reflexivity in bioethics. Bioethics, 24, 256–265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leget, C., Borry, P., & De Vries, R. (2009). Nobody tosses a dwarf! The relation between the empirical and the normative reexamined. Bioethics, 23, 226–235.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Levitt, M. (2003). Better together: Sociological and philosophical perspectives on bioethics. In M. Häyry & T. Takala (Eds.), Scratching the surface of bioethics. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Louhlin, M. (2011). Criticizing the data: Some concerns about empirical approaches to ethics. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17, 970–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McMillan, J. (2012). Psychiatric ethics and the methodological virtues of bioethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38, 194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moore, A. (2010). ‘Public bioethics and public engagement: The politics of “Proper Talk”. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 197–211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Priaulx, N. (2011). Vorsprung durch technic: On biotechnology, bioethics and its beneficiaries. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 20, 174–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schicktanz, S., Schweda, M., & Wynne, B. (2012). The ethics of ‘public understanding of ethics’—why and how bioethics expertise should include public and patients’ voices. Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy, 15, 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sherwin, S. (2011). Looking backwards, looking forward: Hopes for bioethics’ next twenty-5 Years. Bioethics, 25, 75–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Verkerk, M., & Lindemann, H. (2009). Epilogue: Naturalized Bioethics in Practice. In: Toward responsible knowing and practice. (Cambridge University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardiff Law SchoolCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations