↓ Skip to main content

Beyond integrating social sciences: Reflecting on the place of life sciences in empirical bioethics methodologies

Overview of attention for article published in Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Beyond integrating social sciences: Reflecting on the place of life sciences in empirical bioethics methodologies
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11019-017-9792-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcel Mertz, Jan Schildmann

Abstract

Empirical bioethics is commonly understood as integrating empirical research with normative-ethical research in order to address an ethical issue. Methodological analyses in empirical bioethics mainly focus on the integration of socio-empirical sciences (e.g. sociology or psychology) and normative ethics. But while there are numerous multidisciplinary research projects combining life sciences and normative ethics, there is few explicit methodological reflection on how to integrate both fields, or about the goals and rationales of such interdisciplinary cooperation. In this paper we will review some drivers for the tendency of empirical bioethics methodologies to focus on the collaboration of normative ethics with particularly social sciences. Subsequently, we argue that the ends of empirical bioethics, not the empirical methods, are decisive for the question of which empirical disciplines can contribute to empirical bioethics in a meaningful way. Using already existing types of research integration as a springboard, five possible types of research which encompass life sciences and normative analysis will illustrate how such cooperation can be conceptualized from a methodological perspective within empirical bioethics. We will conclude with a reflection on the limitations and challenges of empirical bioethics research that integrates life sciences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 28%
Professor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 4 22%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 5 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2018.
All research outputs
#15,470,944
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#376
of 594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,805
of 314,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#11
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.