Philosophers in research ethics committees—what do they think they’re doing? An empirical-ethical analysis

Author:

Gauckler CharlotteORCID

Abstract

AbstractResearch ethics committees in Germany usually don’t have philosophers as members and if so, only contingently, not provided for by statute. This is interesting from a philosophical perspective, assuming that ethics is a discipline of philosophy. It prompts the question what role philosophers play in those committees they can be found in. Eight qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the self-perception of philosophers regarding their contribution to research ethics committees. The results show that the participants generally don’t view themselves as ethics experts. They are rather unanimous on the competencies they think they contribute to the committee but not as to whether those are philosophical competencies or applied ethical ones. In some cases they don’t see a big difference between their role and the role of the jurist member. In the discussion section of this paper I bring up three topics, prompted by the interviews, that need to be addressed: (1) I argue that the interviewees’ unwillingness to call themselves ethics experts might have to do with a too narrow understanding of ethics expertise. (2) I argue that the disagreement among the interviewees concerning the relationship between moral philosophy and applied ethics might be explained on a theoretical or on a practical level. (3) I argue that there is some lack of clarity concerning the relationship between ethics and law in research ethics committees and that further work needs to be done here. All three topics, I conclude, need further investigation.

Funder

Department for Ethics, Theory and History of the Life Sciences, University of Greifswald

Universität Greifswald

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Health Policy,Education,Health (social science)

Reference26 articles.

1. Adams, William. 2015. Conducting semi-structured interviews. In Handbook of practical program evaluation, ed. Kathryn E. Newcomer, Harry P. Hatry, and Joseph S. Wholey, 492–505. Hoboken: Wiley.

2. Archard, David. 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.

3. Archard, David, and Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen. 2013. Applied ethics. In The international encyclopedia of ethics, ed. Hugh LaFollette, 320–335. Malden: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee693.

4. Birnbacher, Dieter. 2002. Wofür ist der “Ethik-Experte” Experte? In Biomedizinische Ethik: Aufgaben, Methoden, Selbstverständnis, ed. Bernward Gesang, 97–114. Paderborn: Mentis.

5. Bogner, Alexander, Beate Littig, and Wolfgang Menz. 2014. Interviews mit Experten. Wiesbaden: Springer.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. FILOSOFIA E EDUCAÇÃO MUSICAL;Revista da FUNDARTE;2022-12-14

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3