A risk with the tendency is that bioethics is discredited and attacked as no more than an unhappy hindrance to novel research.
Like when Steven Pinker recently wrote that the primary moral goal for bioethics today should be:
But there is a way to go: self-scrutinizing ethics research.
Bioethics is often misunderstood as merely a fixed and finished framework of ethical rules, principles and review systems: as a cumbersome bureaucracy. I guess that is how Pinker understands it.
But first, the “framework” is the result of novel ethical thinking at a time when we had reason to rethink the position of science. Doing research is important, but it does not justify exploiting research participants. There are other values than Science, which scientists should take seriously.
Secondly, this ethical thinking will never be finished. There are always new problems to subject to self-scrutinizing ethics research.
Not infrequently these problems are occasioned by the bioethical framework. Pregnant women and children are routinely excluded from research, on ethical grounds. But does not the protection of these groups as research participants mean that they are exposed to risks as patients? If new drugs are tested only on adult males, we don’t know what doses a pregnant woman or an infant should receive.
We need self-critical ethics research, to keep ethics alive and to avoid idling.
Therefore, I formulate a different imperative than the one Steven Pinker suggests.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.