PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10344422

Improving our aim.

J Andre·L Fleck·T Tomlinson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Bioethicists appearing in the media have been accused of "shooting from the hip" (Rachels, 1991). The criticism is sometimes justified. We identify some reasons our interactions with the press can have bad results and suggest remedies. In particular we describe a target (fostering better public dialogue), obstacles to hitting the target (such as intrinsic and accidental defects in our knowledge) and suggest some practical ways to surmont those obstacles (including seeking out ways to write or speak at length, rather than in sound bites). We make use of our own research into the way journalists quote bioethicists. We end by suggesting that the profession as a whole look into this question more fully.

Explore related subjects

Bioethical IssuesBioethicsDisclosureEmpirical ResearchEthicistsHumansJournalismMass MediaProfessional RoleReligion and MedicineUncertaintyBioethics and Professional EthicsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Andre, L Fleck, T Tomlinson. 1999. Improving our aim.. https://doi.org/10.1076/jmep.24.2.130.2536

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

The need for scientists and judges to work together: regarding a new European network.

Is it always true to say that science is, by definition, universal whilst laws and the courts which apply them are a classic state and national expression? Yes and no. In recent years a new scenario has opened all over the world. Courts intervene more and more in disputes on matters related to scientific procedures in the biological field. In doing so the courts' decisions are affected by scientific issues and ways of reasoning and, on the other hand, affect the scientific field and its way of reasoning. While the old matter of bioethics was still alive and while judges were improving their skill in dealing with hard matters, like refusal of medical treatments, abortion, euthanasia et cetera, a new challenge appeared on the horizon, the challenge of biological sciences, and especially of the most troubled field of human genetics. A completely new awareness is developing among judges that they belong to an international judiciary community, as informal as it is real. Such a community is, even at an embryonic stage, sufficiently universal to be able to come together with the international scientific community. The authors maintain we are in urgent need for new interaction between judges and scientists and of new international means in the light of such cooperation. Judges and jurists need to become better acquainted with scientific questions and learn to exchange ideas with scientists. They also need to set themselves against the latters' conceptual systems and be willing to put their own up for discussion. A European Network for Life Sciences, Health and the Courts is taking its first steps, and judges and scientists are working side by side to tackle the new challenges. The provisional headquarters are located at the University of Pavia (I), Laboratorio di Biologia dello Sviluppo and Collegio Ghislieri (e-mail: enlsc@unipv.it). ENLSC activity is inspired by the following idea: to be against science is as much antiscientific as to be acritically pro-science.

Bioethical Issues↗