Whose ethics of knowledge? Taking the next step in evaluating knowledge in synthetic biology: a response to Douglas and Savulescu
The recent proposal by Douglas and Savulescu for an ethics of knowledge provokes a renewed consideration of an enduring issue. Yet, the concept raises significant challenges for procedural and substantive justice. Indeed, the operationalisation of ‘an ethics of knowledge’ could be as alarming as wha...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
BMJ Publ.
2012
|
| In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2012, Volume: 38, Issue: 10, Pages: 636-638 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000caa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1816144363 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230427161307.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220908s2012 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1136/medethics-2012-100563 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1816144363 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1816144363 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Pierce, L. |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Whose ethics of knowledge? Taking the next step in evaluating knowledge in synthetic biology: a response to Douglas and Savulescu |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2012 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a The recent proposal by Douglas and Savulescu for an ethics of knowledge provokes a renewed consideration of an enduring issue. Yet, the concept raises significant challenges for procedural and substantive justice. Indeed, the operationalisation of ‘an ethics of knowledge’ could be as alarming as what it seeks to prevent. While we can acknowledge that there is, and surely always will be, potential for misuse of beneficial science and technology, a contemplated conception of what we ought to not know, devise or disseminate sets before us an enormously complex task. This essay challenges an ethics of knowledge to respond to concerns of procedural and substantive justice. While the concept has a certain appeal, it does not appear to adequately address certain fundamental issues as it is currently presented. Here, the author invites consideration of two primary points: (1) who should decide, based on whose interests? and (2) could such an exercise actually be effective in achieving its goal? | ||
| 601 | |a Knowledge | ||
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of medical ethics |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975 |g 38(2012), 10, Seite 636-638 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)323607802 |w (DE-600)2026397-1 |w (DE-576)260773972 |x 1473-4257 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:38 |g year:2012 |g number:10 |g pages:636-638 |
| 856 | |3 Volltext |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/23273354 |x JSTOR | ||
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100563 |x Resolving-System |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/38/10/636.abstract |x Verlag |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 935 | |a mteo | ||
| 936 | u | w | |d 38 |j 2012 |e 10 |h 636-638 |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 4185598254 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1816144363 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20220908053559 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 035 |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-03#A5F3C74BC4E4735A0BFE74C536D170286CD4124F | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 866 |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/23273354 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixrk |a zota | ||
| OAS | |a 1 |b inherited from superior work | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||