Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 445–467 | Cite as

Moving Life Science Ethics Debates Beyond National Borders: Some Empirical Observations

  • Louise BezuidenhoutEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The life sciences are increasingly being called on to produce “socially robust” knowledge that honors the social contract between science and society. This has resulted in the emergence of a number of “broad social issues” that reflect the ethical tensions in these social contracts. These issues are framed in a variety of ways around the world, evidenced by differences in regulations addressing them. It is important to question whether these variations are simply regulatory variations or in fact reflect a contextual approach to ethics that brings into question the existence of a system of “global scientific ethics”. Nonetheless, within ethics education for scientists these broad social issues are often presented using this scheme of global ethics due to legacies of science ethics pedagogy. This paper suggests this may present barriers to fostering international discourse between communities of scientists, and may cause difficulties in harmonizing (and transporting) national regulations for the governance of these issues. Reinterpreting these variations according to how the content of ethical principles is attributed by communities is proposed as crucial for developing a robust international discourse. To illustrate this, the paper offers some empirical fieldwork data that considers how the concept of dual-use (as a broad social issue) was discussed within African and UK laboratories. Demonstrating that African scientists reshaped the concept of dual-use according to their own research environmental pressures and ascribed alternative content to the principles that underpin it, suggests that the limitations of a “global scientific ethics” system for these issues cannot be ignored.

Keywords

Ethics Life sciences Developing countries Contextualization Education H. T. Engelhardt Jr. 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Prof Brian Rappert at the University of Exeter for his comments on this manuscript. The fieldwork presented at this paper was sponsored by the Welcome Trust.

References

  1. AAAS. (2009). A survey of attitudes and actions on dual-use research in the life sciences. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Research Council.Google Scholar
  2. Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Clevestig, P. (2009). Handbook of applied biosecurity for life science laboratories. Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.Google Scholar
  4. DRZE. (2011). Stem cell research. Bonn: Deutsches Referenzzentrum für Ethik in den Biowissenschaften.Google Scholar
  5. Engelhardt, H. T, Jr. (1985). The foundations of bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Engelhardt, H. T, Jr. (1986). The foundations of bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Engelhardt, H. T, Jr. (2012). Bioethics critically reconsidered: Living after foundations. Theoretical Medical Bioethics, 33, 97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evers, K. (2001). Standards of ethics and responsibility in science: An analysis and evaluation of their content, background and function. Paris: International Council for Science.Google Scholar
  9. Fine, J. C. (2007). Investing in STI in sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons from collaborative initiatives in research and higher education. Washington D. C., Global Forum: building science, technology and innovation capacity for sustainable growth and poverty reduction.Google Scholar
  10. Frith, L. (2012). Social empirical ethics: A practical methodology. Bioethics, 26(4), 198–206.Google Scholar
  11. Gibbons, M. (1999). Science’s new social contract with society. Nature, 402, C81–C84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Institute of Medicine. (2002). Integrity in scientific research. Washington D. C: Institute of Medicine and National Research Council.Google Scholar
  13. Jones, N. (2007). A code of conduct for the life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 25–43.Google Scholar
  14. Kuhlau, F., Eriksson, S., Evers, K., & Hoglund, A. T. (2008). Taking due care: Moral obligations in dual use research. Bioethics, 22(9), 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mancini, G., & Revill, J. (2008). Fostering the biosecurity norm: Biosecurity education for the next generation. Bradford: University of Bradford.Google Scholar
  16. Miller, S., & Selgelid, M. J. (2007). Ethical and philosophical considerations of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 523–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mitcham, C. (2003). Co-responsibility for research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9, 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. NRC. (2011). Challenges and opportunities for education about dual-use issues. Washington, DC: National Research Council Press.Google Scholar
  19. NSABB. (2006). Globalization, biosecurity and the future of the life sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  20. NSABB. (2012). A code of conduct tool kit. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  21. Rappert, B. (2007). Biotechnology, security and the search for limits. An inquiry into research and methods. Palgrace MacMillan: Houndsmill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rappert, B. (Ed.). (2010). Education and ethics in the life sciences. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rappert, B., & MacLeish, C. (Eds.). (2007). A web of prevention. Earthscan: London.Google Scholar
  24. Resnik, D. (2009). International standards for research integrity: An idea whose time has come? Accountability in Research, 16(4), 218–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shamoo, A., & Resnik, D. (2009). Responsible conduct of research. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. UNAS. (2008). Promoting biosafety and biosecurity within the life sciences: An international workshop in East Africa. Kampala: Uganda National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  27. UNESCO. (2001). The use of embryonic stem cells in therapeutic research. Paris: International Bioethics Committee (UNESCO).Google Scholar
  28. Venter, A. J. (2012). How South Africa built six atom bombs and then abandoned its nuclear weapons program. Johannesburg: Ashanti Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology, Philosophy and AnthropologyUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy, WITS Centre for EthicsUniversity of WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations