| Title |
Translating Neuroethics: Reflections from Muslim Ethics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-012-9392-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ebrahim Moosa |
| Abstract |
Muslim ethics is cautiously engaging developments in neuroscience. In their encounters with developments in neuroscience such as brain death and functional magnetic resonance imaging procedures, Muslim ethicists might be on the cusp of spirited debates. Science and religion perform different kinds of work and ought not to be conflated. Cultural translation is central to negotiating the complex life worlds of religious communities, Muslims included. Cultural translation involves lived encounters with modernity and its byproduct, modern science. Serious ethical debate requires more than just a mere instrumental encounter with science. A robust Muslim approach to neuroethics might require an emulsion of religion and neuroscience, thought and body, and body and soul. Yet one must anticipate that Muslim debates in neuroethics will be inflected with Muslim values, symbols and the discrete faith perspectives of this tradition with meanings that are specific to people who share this worldview and their concerns. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Peru | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 57 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 24% |
| Unknown | 19 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 12% |
| Psychology | 4 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 22% |
| Unknown | 22 | 37% |
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 April 2014.
All research outputs
#21,420,714
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#912
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,843
of 174,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 174,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.