Two sources of possible disagreement in bioethics may be associated with pessimism about what bioethics can achieve. First, pluralism implies that bioethics engages with interlocutors who hold divergent moral beliefs. Pessimists might believe that these disagreements significantly limit the extent to which bioethics can provide normatively robust guidance in relevant areas. Second, the interdisciplinary nature of bioethics suggests that interlocutors may hold divergent views on the nature of bioethics itself—particularly its practicality. Pessimists may suppose that interdisciplinary disagreements could frustrate the (...) goals of bioethics. In this article, I explore how wonder may alleviate the concerns of the first group of pessimists regarding problems associated with pluralism, provided that we are willing to accept some interdisciplinary frustrations. Then, I invite readers of this issue of The Journal of Medicine & Philosophy to test these intuitions by considering the role of wonder in these articles. (shrink)

With the increasing professionalization of clinical ethics, some hospitals and health systems utilize both ethics committees and professional clinical ethicists to address their ethics needs. Drawing upon historical critiques of ethics committees and their own experiences, the authors argue that, in ethics programs with one or more professional clinical ethicists, ethics committees should be dissolved when they fail to meet minimum standards of effectiveness. The authors outline several criteria for assessing effectiveness, describe the benefits of a model that places primary (...) responsibility for ethics work with professional clinical ethicists—the PCE-primary model, and offer suggestions for alternative ethics program structures that empower healthcare professionals to contribute to ethics work in ways more tailored to their strengths and skills while minimizing the shortcomings of ethics committees. (shrink)

The authority of bioethics as a field of inquiry and of bioethicists as scholars with a distinctive expertise is being questioned on various fronts. Sarah Franklin’s 2019Naturecommentary ‘Ethical research – the long and bumpy road from shirked to shared’ is the latest example. In this paper, we respond to these challenges by focusing on two key issues. First, we discuss the theory and practice of bioethics. We argue that both of these endeavours are fundamental components of this field of inquiry (...) and that bioethics cannot be reduced to the contribution that it makes to the production of biopolicy, as Franklin suggests. Second, we contend that bioethicists have distinctive skills and knowledge that place them at an epistemic advantage in discussing normative questions. Hence, we reject views that deny the specific contribution that bioethicists can bring to assessing the ethics and governance of science and technology. We conclude by arguing that—despite formal and substantive differences between disciplines—philosophers, social scientists and other scholars should join forces and engage in critical friendships rather than turf wars to move towards the just governance of science and technology. (shrink)

In this paper, I describe a collaborative project involving two feminist trained scientists1 in consultation with a bioethicist, a policy analyst, and a research scientist funded by the National Academies Keck Futures Initiative for the design and implementation of a training program for ethics in synthetic biology. In spring 2011, the project culminated in our coteaching an experimental graduate seminar on ethics and synthetic biology.Synthetic biology most commonly refers to an interdisciplinary field that aims to merge engineering and biology methods (...) to create new technologies. The promise is that these new technologies will solve the world’s most pressing problems: for example, they may provide us with cures.. (shrink)

The aim of this study is to examine the current profile of bioethics education in the nursing curriculum as perceived by nursing students and faculty in Korea. A convenience sampling method was used for recruiting 1223 undergraduate nursing students and 140 nursing faculty in Korea. Experience of Bioethics Education, Quality of Bioethics Education, and Demand for Bioethics Education Scales were developed. The Experience of Bioethics Education Scale showed that the nursing curriculum in Korea does not provide adequate bioethics education. The (...) Quality of Bioethics Education Scale revealed that the topics of human nature and human rights were relatively well taught compared to other topics. The Demand for Bioethics Education Scale determined that the majority of the participants believed that bioethics education should be a major requirement in the nursing curriculum. The findings of this study suggest that bioethics should be systemically incorporated into nursing courses, clinical practice during the program, and during continuing education. (shrink)

The aim of this study is to examine the current profile of bioethics education in the nursing curriculum as perceived by nursing students and faculty in Korea. A convenience sampling method was used for recruiting 1223 undergraduate nursing students and 140 nursing faculty in Korea. Experience of Bioethics Education, Quality of Bioethics Education, and Demand for Bioethics Education Scales were developed. The Experience of Bioethics Education Scale showed that the nursing curriculum in Korea does not provide adequate bioethics education. The (...) Quality of Bioethics Education Scale revealed that the topics of human nature and human rights were relatively well taught compared to other topics. The Demand for Bioethics Education Scale determined that the majority of the participants believed that bioethics education should be a major requirement in the nursing curriculum. The findings of this study suggest that bioethics should be systemically incorporated into nursing courses, clinical practice during the program, and during continuing education. (shrink)