Bioethics: The View from Social Science

John H Evans, University of California, San Diego, California, USA
Lauren D Olsen, University of California, San Diego, California, USA

Published online: December 2016

DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0027019

Abstract

Since the inception of professional American bioethics, social scientists have been invested in participating in the debates surrounding the definitions and solutions to bioethical problems. The relationship between the social sciences and professional bioethics, however, has been tenuous, given the different disciplinary methods and ideas that undergird both fields. At present, the social sciences contribute to bioethics in two central ways. As outsiders, or as social scientists of bioethics, researchers place the profession of bioethics as their object of empirical study; as insiders, or as social scientists in bioethics, researchers work within the framework of professional bioethics. The former is more critical, often challenging assumptions in professional bioethics, and the latter is more positivistic, supplying empirical data about opinions, values and experiences that help improve existing practices within professional bioethics.

Key Concepts

  • In American bioethics, there are four jurisdictions that a variety of professionals engage in: cultural bioethics, research bioethics, health care ethics consultation and public policy bioethics.
  • The profession of bioethics is a group of professionals that have a common set of methods and ideas for posing and solving problems.
  • The social sciences have had a complex relationship with professional bioethics because often social scientists challenge the methods and ideas that form the basis of professional bioethics' authority.
  • It is helpful to think of social sciences of bioethics and social sciences in bioethics to differentiate between the ways in which social scientists engage with the study of bioethics.
  • Social scientists of bioethics empirically study the profession of bioethics, situating its claims to expertise, institutionalisation and practices within the broader cultural and social context.
  • Social scientists in bioethics empirically study questions originally raised or delimited in scope by the profession of bioethics, hoping to improve the decision‐making processes or implementation practices within the jurisdictions of bioethics.
  • While social science of bioethics and social science in bioethics have historically existed in tension, it is important that they remain distinct areas of inquiry while moving towards constructive conversations.

Keywords: jurisdictions of bioethics; profession of bioethics; social science of bioethics; social science in bioethics; public engagement

References

Anspach RR (1993) Deciding Who Lives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Beecher HK (1966) Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine 274: 1354–1360.

Borry P, Schotsmans P and Dierickx K (2005) The birth of the empirical turn in bioethics. Bioethics 19 (1): 49–71.

Bosk CL (1992) All God's Mistakes: Genetic Counseling in a Pediatric Hospital. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bosk CL (2010) Bioethics, raw and cooked: extraordinary conflict and everyday practice. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 5 (1): S133–S146.

Brown MB (2009) Three ways to politicize bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2): 43–54.

Chadwick RF (2015) Bioethics – Overview. In: eLS. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Chambliss D (1996) Beyond Caring: Hospitals, Nurses, and the Social Organization of Ethics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Davies R, Ives J and Dunn M (2015) A systematic review of empirical bioethics methodologies. BMC Medical Ethics 16: 15. DOI: 10:1186/s12910‐015‐0010‐3.

DeCastro LD (1999) Is there an Asian bioethics? Bioethics 13 (3): 227–235.

DeVries RG (2004) How can we help? From ‘sociology in’ to ‘sociology of’ bioethics. Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics 32 (2): 279–292.

DeVries RG, Stancyzk A, Wall IF, et al. (2010) Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: a case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research. Social Science and Medicine 70 (12): 1896–1903.

Dzur AW and Levin L (2004) The ‘nation's conscience’: assessing bioethics commissions as public forums. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (4): 333–360.

Evans JH (2002) Playing God? Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of the Public Bioethical Debate. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Evans JH (2012) The History and Future of Bioethics: A Sociological View. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fischer F (1990) Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hedgecoe AM (2012) Trust and regulatory organisations: the role of local knowledge and facework in research ethics review. Social Studies of Science 42 (5): 662–683.

Imber J (1998) Medical publicity before bioethics: nineteenth‐century illustrations of twentieth‐century dilemmas. In: De Vries RG and Subedi J (eds) Bioethics and Society: Constructing the Ethical Enterprise, pp. 16–37. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice‐Hall.

Institute of Medicine (2016) Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques: Ethical, Social, and Policy Considerations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Jonsen AR (1998) The Birth of Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kim SYH (2010) Evaluation of Capacity to Consent to Treatment and Research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kim SYH, Wilson RR, De Vries RG, et al. (2015) ‘It is not guaranteed that you will benefit’: true but misleading? Clinical Trials 12 (4): 424–431.

Kleinman AM (1980) Patients and Healers in the Context of Culture: An Exploration of the Borderland Between Anthropology, Medicine, and Psychiatry. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Klitzman R (2010) Exclusion of genetic information from the medical record: ethical and medical dilemmas. Journal of the American Medical Association 304 (10): 1120–1121.

Lehoux P, Daudelin G, Demers‐Pavette O and Boivin A (2009) Fostering deliberation about health innovation: what do we want to know from publics? Social Science and Medicine 68 (11): 2002–2009.

Lieban RW (1990) Medical anthropology and the comparative study of medical ethics. In: Weisz G (ed.) Social Science Perspectives on Medical Ethics, pp. 221–240. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Mbugua K (2012) Respect for cultural diversity and the empirical turn in bioethics: a plea for caution. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine 5 (1): 2–5.

National Bioethics Advisory Commission (1997) Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: NBAC.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978a) The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research‐the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978b) Special Study: Implications of Advances in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1982) Making Health Care Decisions: A Report on the Ethical and Legal Implications of Informed Consent in the Patient‐Practitioner Relationship. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Rothman DJ (1991) Strangers at the Bedside: A History of How Law and Bioethics Transformed Medical Decision‐Making. New York: Basic Books.

Simonson P (2002) Bioethics and the rituals of media. Hastings Center Report 32 (1): 32–39.

Smedley BD, Stith AY and Nelson AR (2002) Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Specter M (2015) The gene hackers. The New Yorker, November 16.

Stark LJ (2012) Behind Closed Doors: IRBS and the Making of Ethical Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Stark LJ (2014) Declarative bodies: bureaucracy, ethics, and science in the making. In: Moore K and Kleinman D (eds) Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society. New York: Routledge.

Stevens MLT (1996) The Quinlan case revisited: a history of the cultural politics of medicine and the law. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 21: 347–366.

Stevens MLT (2000) Bioethics in America: Origins and Cultural Politics. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Straus R (1957) The nature and status of medical sociology. American Sociological Review 22: 200–204.

Street J, Duszynski K, Krawczyk S and Braunack‐Mayer A (2014) The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision‐making: a systematic review. Social Science and Medicine 109 (1): 1–9.

Wilson D (2014) The Making of British Bioethics. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Further Reading

Bloom SW (2002) The Word as Scalpel: A History of Medical Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cockerham WC and Scrambler G (2010) Medical sociology and sociological theory. In: Cockerham WC (ed.) The New Blackwell Companion to Medical Sociology, pp. 3–26. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

DeVries R and Subedi J (1998) Bioethics and Society: Constructing the Ethical Enterprise. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

DeVries RG, Bosk CL, Turner L and Orfali K (2007) The View from Here: Social Science and Bioethics. London: Blackwell.

Elliott C and Johnston J (2009) Bioethics: Practice. In: eLS. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Fox RC and Swazey JP (2008) Observing Bioethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hedgecoe AM (2004) Critical bioethics: beyond the social science critique of applied ethics. Bioethics 18: 120–143.

Iredale R (2016) Use of Citizens' Juries to Address Complex Bioethical Challenges. In: eLS. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Stark LJ and Hedgecoe AM (2010) A practical guide to research ethics. In: Bourgeault I, Dingwall R and DeVries RG (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health Research, pp. 589–607. London: Sage.

Wegar K (1992) Sociology in American medical education since the 1960s: the rhetoric of reform. Social Science and Medicine 35 (8): 959–965.

Related Sub-Topics:

Bioethics
Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

Article Title: Bioethics: The View from Social Science
 
How to Cite close
Evans, John H, and Olsen, Lauren D(Dec 2016) Bioethics: The View from Social Science. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0027019]