首页> 外文OA文献 >Bioethical Controversies and Policy Advice: The Production of Ethical Expertise and its Role in the Substantiation of Political Decision-Making
【2h】

Bioethical Controversies and Policy Advice: The Production of Ethical Expertise and its Role in the Substantiation of Political Decision-Making

机译:生物伦理学争议和政策建议:伦理学专门知识的产生及其在政治决策依据中的作用

摘要

At the beginning of 2002 the German parliament took a decision on the permissibility of embryonic research. The compromise reached had neither the compelling logic of the liberal position nor the moral consistency of the opponents of research involving the destruction of human embryos: it allows research on imported embryonic stem cells which originated before January 2002. The decision was preceded by a public discussion in talk shows and newspapers where, for a long period before the funda- mental political decision, the most important arguments and positions on the question of the ethical legitimacy of stem cell research were debated. At the end of November 2001 the recommendations of the ethics councils were made available. The Natio- naler Ethikrat (National Ethics Council) and the Enquete-Kommission ‘Recht und Ethik in der modernen Medizin’ (Study Commission on Law and Ethics in Modern Medicine) expressed the anticipated dissent in the commissions by formulating diver- gent positions and documenting them in separate votes. A similar situation occurred a little later in Austria. At about the same time as the German National Ethics Council was being established, the Austrian chancellor convened a bioethics commission which drew up a statement on stem cell research. As in the German case, competing positions were expressed and documented.On the basis of this example of ‘ethical assistance’ to political decision-makers, we discuss in this chapter the following questions: Can one identify a social meaning of the advice provided by expert commissions under conditions of the absence of clarity? Or, more generally: What does the “new institutionalisation of morality” (Kuhlmann 2002) mean for the relationship between expertise and politics? And what follows from the disagreement of the commissions’ experts for the legitimation of political decision-making?Our chapter, dealing with this „new complexity in the relationship between sci- ence and politics“ (Weingart 2001a: 80), is structured in two sections. In the first section, against the background of the sociological tradition, we critically address the basic assumptions of the theory of reflexive modernisation concerning the role of expert knowledge in the face of new risks. In the second section we outline, in the form of a series of theses, some findings of our qualitative interviews with members of the Austrian Bioethics Commission.
机译:2002年初,德国议会就胚胎研究的可允许性做出了决定。达成的妥协既没有自由主义立场的令人信服的逻辑,也没有反对者对涉及破坏人类胚胎的研究的道德上的一致性:它允许对起源于2002年1月之前的进口胚胎干细胞进行研究。此决定之前进行了公开讨论。在脱口秀节目和报纸上,在进行基本政治决策之前的很长一段时间内,人们一直在辩论关于干细胞研究的伦理合法性问题的最重要论点和立场。在2001年11月,伦理委员会的建议已经公布。全国伦理委员会(National Naler Ethikrat)和现代医学法律与伦理研究委员会(Enquete-Kommission)的“现代医学研究与伦理研究委员会”(Recht und Ethik in der Modernen Medizin)通过提出不同立场和文件记载,表示了委员会中的异议他们分别投票。奥地利不久后发生了类似情况。大约在建立德国国家伦理委员会的同时,奥地利总理召集了一个生物伦理委员会,该委员会就干细胞研究发表了一份声明。与德国案例一样,竞争立场也得到表达和记录。在本例中,向政治决策者提供“道德援助”的基础上,我们在本章中讨论以下问题:一个人能否确定其提供的建议的社会意义?缺乏明确性的专家委员会?或更笼统地说:“道德的新制度化”(Kuhlmann 2002)对专业知识和政治之间的关系意味着什么?从委员会专家对政治决策合法性的分歧中得出的结论是什么?我们的这一章涉及“科学与政治之间关系的新复杂性”(Weingart 2001a:80),分为两部分。部分。在第一部分中,在社会学传统的背景下,我们批判性地论述了反身现代化理论的基本假设,这些理论涉及专家知识在面对新风险时的作用。在第二部分中,我们以一系列论文的形式概述了我们对奥地利生物伦理委员会成员进行的定性采访的一些发现。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号