The relationship between speculation and translation in Bioethics: methods and methodologies

Author:

Johnson TessORCID,Romanis Elizabeth ChloeORCID

Abstract

AbstractThere are increasing pressures for bioethics to emphasise ‘translation’. Against this backdrop, we defend ‘speculative bioethics’. We explore speculation as an important tool and line of bioethical inquiry. Further, we examine the relationship between speculation and translational bioethics and posit that speculation can support translational work. First, speculative research might be conducted as ethical analysis of contemporary issues through a new lens, in which case it supports translational work. Second, speculation might be a first step prior to translational work on a topic. Finally, speculative bioethics might constitute different content altogether, without translational objectives. For each conception of speculative bioethics, important methodological aspects determine whether it constitutes good bioethics research. We conclude that whether speculative bioethics is compatible with translational bioethics—and to what extent—depends on whether it is being employed as tool or content. Applying standards of impact uniformly across bioethics may inappropriately limit speculative bioethics.

Funder

Wellcome Trust

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

General Medicine

Reference68 articles.

1. Anomaly, J. 2020. Creating future people. Abingdon: Routledge.

2. Auerbach, D. 2014. The most terrifying thought experiment of all time. Slate Accessed 10 October, 2022. https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/rokos-basilisk-the-most-terrifying-thought-experiment-of-all-time.html.

3. Awad, E., S. Dsouza, R. Kim, J. Schulz, J. Henrich, A. Shariff, J. Bonnefon, and I. Rahwan. 2018. The Moral Machine experiment. Nature 563: 59–64.

4. Baylis, F., S. Rogers, and D. Young. 2008. Ethical dilemmas in the care of pregnant women: rethinking maternal–fetal conflicts. In The Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics, eds. P. Singer, and A. Viens. 97–103. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

5. Beavers, A. 2011. Moral machines and the threat of ethical nihilism. In Robot Ethics: the ethical and social implications of Robotics, eds. P. Lin, K. Abney, and G. Bekey. 333 – 44. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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