Advertisement

Elective Modernism and the Politics of (Bio)Ethical Expertise

  • Nathan Emmerich
Chapter

Abstract

In this essay I consider whether the political perspective of third wave science studies – ‘elective modernism’ – offers a suitable framework for understanding the policy-making contributions that (bio)ethical experts might make. The question arises as a consequence of the fact that I have taken inspiration from the third wave in order to develop an account of (bio)ethical expertise. I offer a précis of this work and a brief summary of elective modernism before considering their relation. The view I set out suggests that elective modernism is a political philosophy and that although its use in relation to the use of scientific expertise in political and policy-making process has implications for the role of (bio)ethical expertise it does not, in the final analysis, provide an account that is appropriate for this latter form of specialist expertise. Nevertheless, it is an informative perspective, and one that can help us make sense of the political uses of (bio)ethical expertise.

References

  1. Archard, D. 2011. Why Moral Philosophers Are Not And Should Not Be Moral Experts. Bioethics 25 (3): 119–127.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01748.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourdieu, P. 1996. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 2011. Language and Practice. Social Studies of Science 41 (2): 271–300.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711399665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collins, H., and R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ———. 2015. Expertise Revisited, Part I – Interactional Expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 54: 113–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins, H., M. Weinel, and R. Evans. 2010. The Politics and Policy of the Third Wave: New Technologies and Society. Critical Policy Studies 4 (2): 185–201.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2010.490642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cowley, C. 2005. A New Rejection of Moral Expertise. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 8 (3): 273–279.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-005-1588-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daston, L. 1995. The Moral Economy of Science. Osiris 10: 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daston, L., and P. Galison. 2007. Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  10. Emmerich, N. 2013. Medical Ethics Education: An Interdisciplinary and Social Theoretical Perspective. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 2015a. A Sociological Analysis of Ethical Expertise: The Case of Medical Ethics. SAGE Open 5 (2): 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015590445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 2015b. Bourdieu’s Collective Enterprise of Inculcation: The Moral Socialisation and Ethical Enculturation of Medical Students. British Journal of Sociology of Education 36 (7): 1054–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans, J.H. 2012. The History and Future of Bioethics: A Sociological View. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Evans, R. 2014. Science and Democracy in the Third Wave Elective modernism Not Epistocracy. In Expertise and Democracy, ed. C. Holst, 85–102. Oslo: ARENA, Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo https://sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/publications/arena-publications/reports/2014/report-01-14.pdf#page=92. Accessed 21 Oct 2014.Google Scholar
  16. Faubion, J.D. 2011. An Anthropology of Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer, F. 2011. The “Policy Turn” in the Third Wave: Return to the Fact–Value Dichotomy? Critical Policy Studies 5 (3): 311–316.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2011.606304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hammond-Browning, N. 2015. Ethics, Embryos, and Evidence: A Look Back at Warnock. Medical Law Review 23 (4): 588–619.  https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwv028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harris, J. 1985. The value of life. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, M. 2014. Morality for Humans: Ethical Understanding from the Perspective of Cognitive Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laidlaw, J. 2013. The Subject of Virtue: An Anthropology of Ethics and Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lambek, M. 2010. Ordinary Ethics: Anthropology, Language, and Action. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Levitt, M. 2003. Public Consultation in Bioethics. What’s the Point of Asking the Public When They Have Neither Scientific nor Ethical Expertise? Health Care Analysis 11 (1): 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Montgomery, J. 2013. Reflections on the Nature of Public Ethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 22 (1): 9–21.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180112000345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ———. 2016. Bioethics as a Governance Practice. Health Care Analysis 24 (1): 3–23.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-015-0310-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Musschenga, A.W. 2015. Editorial: VIRTUAL ISSUE No. 1: Virtues, Skills, and Moral Expertise. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, (Virtual Issue, Online Only). http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/applied+ethics/journal/10677. Accessed 2 Feb 2015.
  27. Narvaez, D., and D.K. Lapsley. 2005. The psychological foundations of everyday morality and moral expertise. In Character Psychology and Character Education, ed. D.K. Lapsley and F.C. Power, 140–165. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  28. Radcliffe-Richards, J. 2012. The Ethics of Transplants: Why Careless Thought Costs Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Rosanvallon, P. 2011. Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity. Trans. A. Goldhammer. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, C. 2009. Moral, Believing Animals: Human Personhood and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Snow, N.E. 2009. Virtue as Social Intelligence: An Empirically Grounded Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Stichter, M. 2007. Ethical Expertise: The Skill Model of Virtue. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (2): 183–194.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-006-9054-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Swartwood. 2013. Wisdom as an Expert Skill. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (3): 511–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Toulmin, S.E. 1981. The tyranny of principles. The Hastings Centre Report 11 (6): 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilson, D. 2011. Creating the “Ethics Industry”: Mary Warnock, In Vitro Fertilization, and the History of Bioethics in Britain. BioSocieties 6 (2): 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zahle, J. 2013. Practices and the Direct Perception of Normative States: Part I. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 43 (4): 493–518.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393112454995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. ———. 2014. Practices and the Direct Perception of Normative States: Part II. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44 (1): 74–85.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393112462517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zigon, J. 2008. Morality: An Anthropological Perspective. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ANU Medical SchoolAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.The Institute of Ethics, Dublin City UniversityDublinIreland
  3. 3.School of History, Anthropology, Politics and PhilosophyQueen’s University BelfastBelfastUK

Personalised recommendations