Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Empirical Turn in Bioethics – From Boundary Work to a Context-Sensitive, Transdisciplinary Field of Inquiry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Empirically Informed Ethics: Morality between Facts and Norms

Part of the book series: Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy ((LOET,volume 32))

  • 1684 Accesses

Abstract

The debate on facts and values in (bio)-ethics is also a debate on the contribution of the social sciences and psychology to bioethics and vice versa. This debate has recently reached a new state of reflection. It started with indifference in the early 1970s, when both ethics (philosophy, theology, law) and the (social) sciences (especially medical sociology and medical and social psychology) began to penetrate the field of biomedical science and practice from its margins. A phase of some interest, debate and cooperative efforts followed, when both disciplinary fields bloomed and became institutionalized in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The first critique of bioethical reasoning was uttered by the social sciences in the 1980s and 1990s, predominantly not expressed in bioethical but social science and theory of science journals (cf. Hoffmaster 1994). At that time, bioethics was not only established as an important scientific field outside the US, but also as a political endeavor of a pool of experts taking part, and positions in, biomedical and political institutions and debates. Today we witness a fundamental and central scientific debate on a practical, theoretical and epistemological level in the social sciences, philosophy and bioethics. This debate entails a thorough reflection of the contributions of: the social sciences to the core project of bioethics; ethics to the discussions in the social sciences; and both social sciences and bioethics to one of their (many) aims they have in common which is to analyze, reflect on and (I would stress) improve theory and practice of medicine and health care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    William Cockerham, for example, did not mention the term ‘ethics’ in the subject index or even once even in its fourth edition of Medical Sociology in 1989.

  2. 2.

    This was fostered by research surrounding the human genome project on ethical, legal and social implications, but also in other fields of biomedicine, such as intensive care. See for example the work of Chadwick et al. (1992), Chadwick (1987) and Wertz and Fletcher (2004).

  3. 3.

    The reflections on a “phronetic” versus an “epistemic” science, a differentiation first made by Aristotle in his critique of Plato in Nicomachean Ethics, are now found in social science (e.g. Flyvbjerg 2001) and also in bioethics (e.g. Engelhard 1999). See also the discussion below.

  4. 4.

    Besides many French sociologists and philosophers, such as Jacques Derrida, Francois Lyotard, Michel Foucault, Paul Ricoeur, Paul Valéry and Pierre Bourdieu and the German sociologists and philosophers Ulrich Beck, Odo Marquard and Wolfgang Welsch, I consider Richard Rorty and Judith Butler as the most thorough and differentiated philosophers of modernism and post-modern thinking as a pluralism of rationalities and truths; See Richard Rorty’s early book on epistemology (1979) and his later book on practical philosophy (1989). In regard to ethics, Judith Butlers Adorno’s lectures (2003) describe some of the most important features of a late modern self. As some of the most important and differentiated opponents of late/post-modern thinking who share the diagnosis of late modern uncertainties in epistemology but defend some early modern features in ethics, I do consider Jürgen Habermas (e.g. 1987) and Benhabib (1992).

  5. 5.

    I depict the notion of biology as meaning in Part VI. For this debate see for example Franklin (1997), Nelkin and Lindee (1995) and Haraway (1989).

  6. 6.

    For an overview see Dahms (1994) and Von Uexküll et al. (1996). Main protagonists of the dispute on positivism were Neurath, Carnap and (in the second phase) Popper on the side of analytic philosophy and critical rationalism, Horkheimer, Adorno and (in the second phase) Habermas on the side of critical theory.

  7. 7.

    On the side of the ‘realists’, Gross and Levitt (1994) defended objective science against the, as they see it, ‘irrational postmodernists’. The science war became even more fierce when the “Sokal Hoax” took place: The publication of an article of physicist Alan D Sokal in a high impact social science journal on “Transgressing the boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum gravity” later revealed to be a bogus article by Sokal himself resulting in the assumption that most social science is bunk. This was answered by social scientists like Shulman accusing Sokal and other natural scientists of being “pre-kantian shamans repeating the mantra of particle physicists” (Flyvbjerg 2001: 1). For a debate on this book and reaction of social scientists see Flyvbjerg (2001) and Ashman and Bahringer (2001).

  8. 8.

    See for example Bogner (2005) as a very comprehensive description of boundary work in the field of biopolitics from a sociologist and technology assessment point of view. See also Jasanoff (1990).

  9. 9.

    For a description of boundary work from the view of a philosophical bioethicist, see Herrera (2008). For a good example of describing this boundary work in bioethics in the view of a social scientist, see Rapp (2000).

  10. 10.

    Other prominent examples of taking the naturalistic fallacy (although critically thinking about it) as a main principle of a meaningful ethical endeavour are Beauchamp and Childress (2001: 2) and Sugarman and Sulmasy (2001: 6–11).

  11. 11.

    As a psychologist on the naturalistic fallacy see Kohlberg (1971: 151, 222), cited in Biller-Andorno (2001: 22).

  12. 12.

    See this discussion also by Sulmasy and Sugarman (2001), who excellently discuss these fallacies but still have one favored way of looking at the blackbird and who, to my mind, uphold the fact/value boundary.

  13. 13.

    Birnbacher is a philosopher and ethicist, belonging to an utilitarian trait of thought, which he describes as an indirect, sensitive utilitarianism, taking ‘traditional’ (social, cultural) norms besides the utilitarian view into account (cf. Birnbacher 2006).

  14. 14.

    For the depiction of morality as a habit, drawing on Dewey’s work on human nature and conduct, see La Folette (2000). For moral habits in social psychology see also Hewstone et al. (2007).

  15. 15.

    For the discussion of this model in the field of clinical ethics, see the discussion in Sect. 15.6, especially Steinkamp et al. (2008).

  16. 16.

    Already shown in the 1960 and after, among these Moscovici and Zavalloni (1969).

  17. 17.

    Already shown in the 1950s and after, among these Asch (1952).

  18. 18.

    See above. Another survey in Germany came to the same results (Meister et al. 2005).

  19. 19.

    I would like to thank Evan DeRenzo for making me aware of this publication and of Steinkamp et al. (2008).

  20. 20.

    The authors see the Dreyfus and Dreyfus’s model as an apt description of “the moral thinking of non-ethicists” (p. 180). I do not think they are right. Clinical ethicists involved in real cases also deal with ethical issues in a non-analytic way-contrary to non-clinical ethicists in the academic field, as I depict here.

References

  • Asch, S.E. 1952. Social Psychology. New York: Prentice- Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, A. 1988. Reproductive technologies and Disability. In Reproductive Laws for the 1990s, ed. S. Cohen and N. Taub, 69–124. New York: Humana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashman, K.M., and P.S. Bahringer (eds.). 2001. After the Science Wars. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, A.W. 2005. Wissenschaftliche Ethik als Demoskopie der Alltagsmoral? Kritische Anmerkungen zur Begründungsfrage in der Medizinischen Ethik. In Wie viel Ethik verträgt die Medizin? ed. M. Düwell and J.N. Neumann, 135–144. Münster: Mentis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 1979/2001/2008. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5/6th ed. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib, S. 1992. Situating the Self. Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P.L., and T. Luckmann. 1969. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, R. 1985. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biller-Andorno, N. 2001. Gerechtigkeit und Fürsorge. Zur Möglichkeit einer integrativen Medizinethik. Frankfurt/New York: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbacher, D. 1999. Ethics and the Social Science: which kind of co-operation? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2: 319–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbacher, D. 2006. Bioethik zwischen Natur und Interesse. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogner, A. 2005. Grenzpolitik der Experten. Weilerwist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonß, W., and H. Hartmann (eds.). 1985. Entzauberte Wissenschaft, Soziale Welt, special issue 3. Göttingen: O. Schwartz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. 1984/1988. Homo academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. 2003. Giving an account of oneself. A critique of ethical violence [First in German: Kritik der ethischen Gewalt]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, R.F. (ed.). 1987. Ethics, Reproduction and Genetic Control. New York: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, R., D. Wertz, F. Fletcher, and R. Zussmann. 1992. Intensive Care: Medical Ethics and the Medical Profession. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockerham, W.C. 1989. Medical Sociology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahms, H.J. 1994. Positivismusstreit. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher Bundestag. 2002. Schlussbericht der Enquetekommission Recht und Ethik der Modernen Medizin. Drucksache 14/9020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. 1938/1986. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Carbondale: Southern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H.L., and S.E. Dreyfus. 1988. Mind over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H.L., and S.E. Dreyfus. 2004. The Ethical implications of the Five-Stage-Skill-Acquisition Model. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 24: 251–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. 1993. Explicit connections. Ethnographic enquiry in north-west England. In Technologies of Procreation, ed. J. Edwards, S. Franklin, E. Hirsch, F. Price, and M. Strathern, 42–66. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelhard, H.T. 1999. Moral Knowledge, Moral Narrative and K. Danner Clouser. The Search for Phronesis. In Building Bioethics, ed. L.M. Kopelman, 51–67. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fins, J.J., F.G. Miller, and M.D. Bacchetta. 1997. Clinical Pragmatism. A Method of Problem Solving. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7: 129–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J.C., E.M. Spencer, and P.A. Lombardo (eds.). 2005. Fletcher’s Introduction to Clinical Ethics, 3rd ed. Maryland: Hagerstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. 2001. Making Social science matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. 1971/2004. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. 2007. The Politics of truth, 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, R.C. 2008. The bioethics that I would like to see. Clinical Ethics 3: 25–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, E., S. Myers, and R.A. Pearlman. 2007. Ethics Consultation in United States Hospitals. A national survey. The American Journal of Bioethics 7: 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. 1997. Embodied Progress. A cultural account of assisted conception. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T.F. 1983. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science. American Sociological Review 38: 781–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, M.J. 2005. Evidence based ethics? On evidence-based practice and the “empirical turn” from normative Bioethics. BMC Medical Ethics 6: E1–E9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, P.R., and N. Levitt. 1994. Higher Superstition. The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1981. Theorie kommunikativen Handelns, Vol 1 Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung. Vol. 2. Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1987. The philosophical discourse of Modernity. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 2001. Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur. Auf dem Weg zu einer liberalen Eugenik? Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haimes, E., and R. Williams. 1998. Social Constructionism and the new technologies of reproduction. In The Politics of Constructionism, ed. I. Velody and R. Williams, 132–146. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. 1989. Primate Visions. Gender, Race and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York/London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrera, C. 2008. Is it time for Bioethics to go empirical? Bioethics 22: 137–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewstone, M., W. Stroebe, and K. Jonas. 2007. Introduction to Social Psychology. A European Perspective, 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmaster, B. 1992. Can ethnography save the life of ethics? Social Science & Medicine 35: 1421–1431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmaster, B. 1994. The Forms and Limits of Medical Ethics. Social Science & Medicine 35: 1155–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. 1751. An enquiry concerning the principles of morals. Publ. for A Millar Online see David Hume, D Banach, St Anselm College. http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/Hume-Enquiry%20Concerning%20Morals.htm#sec1. [German version: Hepfer, K. (ed.). 2002. Eine Untersuchung der Grundlagen der Moral. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht].

  • Jasanoff, S. 1990. The Fifth Branch. Science Advisers as Policy Makers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. 1781/1974. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. 1798/1983. Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht. Stuttgart: Reclam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. 1971. From Is to Ought. How to Commit the Naturalistic Fallacy and Get away with it in the study of Moral development. In Cognitive Development and Epistemology, ed. T. Mischel, 151–235. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krones, T. 2006. The scope of the recent bioethics debate in Germany: Kant, crisis and no confidence in society. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 15(3): 273–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krones, T. 2008a. Kontextsensitive Bioethik, Wissenschaftstheorie und Medizin als Praxis. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krones, T. 2008b. Pränatal- und Präimplantationsdiagnostik. Diskriminierung von Menschen mit Behinderungen? In Normal-anders-krank? ed. D. Gross, S. Müller, and J. Steinmetzer, 435–454. Berlin: Medizinisch wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krones, T., E. Schlüter, K. Manolopoulos, K. Bock, H.R. Tinneberg, M.C. Koch, M. Lindner, G.F. Hoffmann, E. Mayatepek, G. Huels, E. Neuwohner, S. El Ansari, T. Wissner, and G. Richter. 2005. Public, expert and patients opinions towards Preimplantation genetic diagnosis in Germany. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 10(1): 116–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krones, T., E. Schlüter, E. Neuwohner, S. El Ansari, T. Wissner, and G. Richter. 2006. What is the preimplantation embryo? Social Science and Medicine 63(1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Folette, H. 2000. Pragmatic Ethics. In The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, ed. H. La Folette, 400–419. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindemann Nelson, J. 2000. Moral teachings from Unexpected Quarters. Lessons from the Social Sciences and Managed Care. The Hastings Center Report 30: 12–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macklin, R. 2000. Against Relativism. Cultural Diversity and the Search for Ethical Universal in Medicine. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 21: 385–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malinowski, B. 1925/1975. Magic, science, and religion and other essays. New York: Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meister, U., C. Finck, Y. Stobel-Richter, G. Schmutzer, and E. Brahler. 2005. Knowledge and Attitudes towards preimplantation genetic diagnosis in Germany. Human Reproduction 20: 231–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G.E. 1903. Principia Ethica. Accessibe online: http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-ethica. Accessed 3 Nov 2011.

  • Moreno, J.D. 1999. Bioethics is a Naturalism. In Pragmatic Bioethics, ed. G. McGee, 5–17. Nashville/London: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S., and M. Zavalloni. 1969. The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12: 125–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musschenga, A.W. 2005. Empirical Ethics, Context-Sensitivity, and Contextualism. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30: 467–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nationaler Ethikrat. 2003. Stellungnahme genetische Diagnostik vor und während der Schwangerschaft. Online. www.ethikrat.org/stellungnahmen/stellungnahmen.html. Accessed 20 Sept 2008.

  • Nelkin, D., and S. Lindee. 1995. The DNA-Mystique. The Gene as Cultural Icon. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M.C. 1986. The Fragility of Goodness. Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, E.D. 1995. The Limitation of Empirical Research in Ethics. The Journal of Clinical Ethics 6: 162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pullman, D. 2005. Ethics First Aid. Reframing the Role of ‘Principlism’ in Clinical Ethics Education and Practice. The Journal of Clinical Ethics 16: 223–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, R. 2000. Testing Women, Testing the Fetus. The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, G. 2007. Greater Patient, Family, and Surrogate Involvement in Clinical Ethics Consultation: The Model of Clinical Ethics Liaison Service as a Measure for Preventive Ethics. HEC Forum 19: 324–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. 1984. Habermas and Lyotard on Post-Modernity. Praxis International 1: 32–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. 1989. Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P.A., E.D. Pellegrino, and M. Siegler. 2001. Clinical ethics revisited. BMC Medical Ethics 2: e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solter, D., D. Beyleveld, M.B. Friele, J. Holówka, R. Pardo Avellaneda, R. Lovell-Badge, C. Mandla, U. Martin, and H. Lilie. 2003. Embryo Research in pluralistic Europe. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steinkamp, N.L., B. Gordijn, and H. ten Have. 2008. Debating ethical expertise. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18: 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugarman, J., and D.P. Sulmasy. 2001. Methods in Medical Ethics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sulmasy, D.P., and J. Sugarman. 2001. The Many Methods of Medical Ethics (Or, Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird). In Methods in Medical Ethics, ed. J. Sugarman and D.P. Sulmasy, 6–10. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Daele, W. 2003. Empirische Befunde zu den gesellschaftlichen Folgen der Pränataldiagnostik. Vorgeburtliche Selektion und die Auswirkungen auf die Lage behinderter Menschen. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Ploeg, I. 2004. Only Angels Can Co Without Skin: On Reproductive Technology´s Hybrids and the Politics of Body Boundaries. Body & Society 10: 153–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Luijn, H.E.M., A.W. Musschenga, R.B. Keus, W.M. Robinson, and N.K. Aaronson. 2002. Assessment of the risk/benefit ratio of phase II cancer clinical trials by institutional review boards (IRB) members. Annals of Oncology 13: 1307–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Uexküll, and W. Wesiack. 1998. Theorie der Humanmedizin, 3rd ed. München/Wien/Baltimore: Urban & Schwarzenberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Uexküll, R. Adler, J.M. Herrmann, K. Köhle, O.W. Schonecke, and W. Wesiack (eds.). 1996. Psychosomatic Medicine. München/Wien/Baltimore: Urban & Schwarzenberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. 1918. Science as a vocation. Online: http://academic.udayton.edu/BradHume/198/WeberSciVoc.htm. Accessed 20 Sept 2008.

  • Wendell, S. 1996. The Rejected Body. Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertz, D.C., and J.C. Fletcher. 2004. Genetics and Ethics in Global Perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wiesemann, C. 2006. Von der Verantwortung ein Kind zu bekommen. Eine Ethik der Elternschaft. München: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Hospital Zurich, Institute of Biomedical Ethics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Tanja Krones

Authors
  1. Tanja Krones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tanja Krones .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Biomedical Ethics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Markus Christen

  2. Anthropological Institute & Museum, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Carel van Schaik

  3. Institute of Social Ethics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Johannes Fischer

  4. University Priority Program Ethics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Markus Huppenbauer

  5. Department of Banking and Finance, Centre for Responsibility in Finance, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Carmen Tanner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Krones, T. (2014). The Empirical Turn in Bioethics – From Boundary Work to a Context-Sensitive, Transdisciplinary Field of Inquiry. In: Christen, M., van Schaik, C., Fischer, J., Huppenbauer, M., Tanner, C. (eds) Empirically Informed Ethics: Morality between Facts and Norms. Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy, vol 32. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01369-5_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation