PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16965631

Global bioethics -- myth or reality?

Søren Holm·Bryn Williams-Jones
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There has been debate on whether a global or unified field of bioethics exists. If bioethics is a unified global field, or at the very least a closely shared way of thinking, then we should expect bioethicists to behave the same way in their academic activities anywhere in the world. This paper investigates whether there is a 'global bioethics' in the sense of a unified academic community. METHODS: To address this question, we study the web-linking patterns of bioethics institutions, the citation patterns of bioethics papers and the buying patterns of bioethics books. RESULTS: All three analyses indicate that there are geographical and institutional differences in the academic behavior of bioethicists and bioethics institutions. CONCLUSION: These exploratory studies support the position that there is no unified global field of bioethics. This is a problem if the only reason is parochialism. But these regional differences are probably of less concern if one notices that bioethics comes in many not always mutually understandable dialects.

Explore related subjects

Advisory CommitteesBibliometricsBioethical IssuesBioethicsBooksDatabases, BibliographicEthicistsInternationalityInternetInterprofessional RelationsPublishingSociologyTextbooks as TopicUnited KingdomUnited StatesUniversitiesAnalytical ApproachBioethics and Professional EthicsEmpirical ApproachComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Søren Holm, Bryn Williams-Jones. 2006-09-11. Global bioethics -- myth or reality?. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-7-10

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2022

The International Consensus Classification of Mature Lymphoid Neoplasms: a report from the Clinical Advisory Committee.

Since the publication of the Revised European-American Classification of Lymphoid Neoplasms in 1994, subsequent updates of the classification of lymphoid neoplasms have been generated through iterative international efforts to achieve broad consensus among hematopathologists, geneticists, molecular scientists, and clinicians. Significant progress has recently been made in the characterization of malignancies of the immune system, with many new insights provided by genomic studies. They have led to this proposal. We have followed the same process that was successfully used for the third and fourth editions of the World Health Organization Classification of Hematologic Neoplasms. The definition, recommended studies, and criteria for the diagnosis of many entities have been extensively refined. Some categories considered provisional have now been upgraded to definite entities. Terminology for some diseases has been revised to adapt nomenclature to the current knowledge of their biology, but these modifications have been restricted to well-justified situations. Major findings from recent genomic studies have impacted the conceptual framework and diagnostic criteria for many disease entities. These changes will have an impact on optimal clinical management. The conclusions of this work are summarized in this report as the proposed International Consensus Classification of mature lymphoid, histiocytic, and dendritic cell tumors.

Advisory Committees↗