| Title |
Family Resemblances: Human Reproductive Cloning as an Example for Reconsidering the Mutual Relationships between Bioethics and Science Fiction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-018-9842-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Solveig L. Hansen |
| Abstract |
In the traditions of narrative ethics and casuistry, stories have a well-established role. Specifically, illness narratives provide insight into patients' perspectives and histories. However, because they tend to see fiction as an aesthetic endeavour, practitioners in these traditions often do not realize that fictional stories are valuable moral sources of their own. In this paper I employ two arguments to show the mutual relationship between bioethics and fiction, specifically, science fiction. First, both discourses use imagination to set a scene and determine a perspective. Second, bioethics and science fiction share the family resemblance of expressing moral beliefs. I then consider how understanding bioethics and science fiction as interrelated discourses can be the basis of a methodology for inquiry into relational autonomy in the context of biotechnologies and medicine. As an example of this methodology, I analyse Fay Weldon's novel The Cloning of Joanna May (1989). |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 20% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Researcher | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 20% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
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 February 2019.
All research outputs
#15,494,712
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#437
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,517
of 332,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#12
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 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 600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 332,626 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.