| Title |
Relative Values: Perspectives on a Neuroimaging Technology From Above and Within the Ethical Landscape
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-016-9725-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gabrielle Samuel, Alan Cribb, John Owens, Clare Williams |
| Abstract |
In this paper we contribute to "sociology in bioethics" and help clarify the range of ways sociological work can contribute to ethics scholarship. We do this using a case study of an innovative neurotechnology, functional magnetic resonance imaging, and its use to attempt to diagnose and communicate with severely brain-injured patients. We compare empirical data from interviews with relatives of patients who have a severe brain injury with perspectives from mainstream bioethics scholars. We use the notion of an "ethical landscape" as an analogy for the different ethical positions subjects can take-whereby a person's position relative to the landscape makes a difference to the way they experience and interact with it. We show that, in comparison to studying abstract ethics "from above" the ethical landscape, which involves universal generalizations and global judgements, studying ethics empirically "from the ground," within the ethical landscape foregrounds a more plural and differentiated picture. We argue it is important not to treat empirical ethics as secondary to abstract ethics, to treat on-the-ground perspectives as useful only insofar as they can inform ethics from above. Rather, empirical perspectives can illuminate the plural vantage points in ethical judgments, highlight the "lived" nature of ethical reasoning, and point to all ethical vantage points as being significant. This is of epistemic importance to normative ethics, since researchers who pay attention to the various positions in and trajectories through the ethical landscape are unlikely to think about ethics in terms of abstract agency-as can happen with top-down ethics-or to elide agency with the agency of policymakers. Moreover, empirical perspectives may have transformative implications for people on the ground, especially where focus on the potential harms and benefits they face brings their experiences and interests to the forefront of ethical and policy discussion. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 12 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 27% |
| Psychology | 4 | 12% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,379,994
of 24,166,768 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#370
of 628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,726
of 359,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,166,768 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 359,077 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.