↓ Skip to main content

Moving Life Science Ethics Debates Beyond National Borders: Some Empirical Observations

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Moving Life Science Ethics Debates Beyond National Borders: Some Empirical Observations
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11948-013-9468-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Bezuidenhout

Abstract

The life sciences are increasingly being called on to produce "socially robust" knowledge that honors the social contract between science and society. This has resulted in the emergence of a number of "broad social issues" that reflect the ethical tensions in these social contracts. These issues are framed in a variety of ways around the world, evidenced by differences in regulations addressing them. It is important to question whether these variations are simply regulatory variations or in fact reflect a contextual approach to ethics that brings into question the existence of a system of "global scientific ethics". Nonetheless, within ethics education for scientists these broad social issues are often presented using this scheme of global ethics due to legacies of science ethics pedagogy. This paper suggests this may present barriers to fostering international discourse between communities of scientists, and may cause difficulties in harmonizing (and transporting) national regulations for the governance of these issues. Reinterpreting these variations according to how the content of ethical principles is attributed by communities is proposed as crucial for developing a robust international discourse. To illustrate this, the paper offers some empirical fieldwork data that considers how the concept of dual-use (as a broad social issue) was discussed within African and UK laboratories. Demonstrating that African scientists reshaped the concept of dual-use according to their own research environmental pressures and ascribed alternative content to the principles that underpin it, suggests that the limitations of a "global scientific ethics" system for these issues cannot be ignored.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 6 26%
Unknown 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 30%
Philosophy 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Engineering 2 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 10 April 2014.
All research outputs
#4,469,784
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#337
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,775
of 205,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 205,713 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.