Beyond integrating social sciences: Reflecting on the place of life sciences in empirical bioethics methodologies
Empirical bioethics is commonly understood as integrating empirical research with normative-ethical research in order to address an ethical issue. Methodological analyses in empirical bioethics mainly focus on the integration of socio-empirical sciences (e.g. sociology or psychology) and normative ethics. But while there are numerous multidisciplinary research projects combining life sciences and normative ethics, there is few explicit methodological reflection on how to integrate both fields, or about the goals and rationales of such interdisciplinary cooperation. In this paper we will review some drivers for the tendency of empirical bioethics methodologies to focus on the collaboration of normative ethics with particularly social sciences. Subsequently, we argue that the ends of empirical bioethics, not the empirical methods, are decisive for the question of which empirical disciplines can contribute to empirical bioethics in a meaningful way. Using already existing types of research integration as a springboard, five possible types of research which encompass life sciences and normative analysis will illustrate how such cooperation can be conceptualized from a methodological perspective within empirical bioethics. We will conclude with a reflection on the limitations and challenges of empirical bioethics research that integrates life sciences.
KeywordsEmpirical bioethics Empirically informed bioethics Evidence-based ethics Empirical research in ethics Life sciences Interdisciplinary research
We like to thank the members of the working group “Ethik und Empirie” of the Akademie für Ethik in der Medizin e.V. (Academy for Ethics in Medicine) for their critical comments on an early draft of this paper.
- Alexander, Joshua 2012. Experimental philosophy: An introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Birnbacher, Dieter. 1995. Tun und Unterlassen. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun.Google Scholar
- Knobe, Joshua, and Shaun Nichols, eds. 2008. Experimental philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Luetge, Christoph, Rusch, Hannes, and Uhl, Matthias, eds. 2014. Experimental ethics: Toward an empirical moral philosophy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Musschenga, Bert (A.W.). 2005. Empirical ethics, context-sensitivity, and contextualism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30:467–490.Google Scholar
- Musschenga, Bert (A.W.). 2009. Was ist empirische ethik? Ethik in der Medizin 21:187–199.Google Scholar
- Musschenga, Bert (A.W.). 2010. Empirical ethics and the special status of practitioner’s judgements. Ethical Perspectives 17:203–230.Google Scholar
- Raus, Kaspar, Martine de Laat, Eric Mortier, and Sigrid Sterckx. 2014. The ethical and clinical importance of measuring consciousness in continuously sedated patients. Journal of Clinical Ethics 25:207–218.Google Scholar
- Sulmasy, Daniel P., and Jeremy Sugarman. 2001. The many methods of medical ethics (or, thirteen ways of looking at a blackbird). In Methods in medical ethics, eds. Daniel P. Sulmasy, Jeremy Sugarman, 3–18. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
- Temel, Jennifer S., Jospeh A. Greer, Alona Muzikansky, Emily R. Gallagher, Sonal Admane, Vicki A. Jackson, Constance M. Dahlin, Craig D. Blinderman, Juliet Jacobsen, William F. Pirl, Billings J. Andrews, Thomas J. Lynch. 2010. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 363:733–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- United Nations. 2006. Final report of the ad hoc committee on a comprehensive and integral international convention on the protection and promotion of the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahcfinalrepe.htm. Accessed 01 Feb 2017.
- Vollmann, Jochen, and Jan Schildmann, eds. 2011. Empirische Medizinethik. Konzepte, Methoden und Ergebnisse. Muenster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar