Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19421896›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2009

Toward a better bioethics: commentary on "Forbidding science: some beginning reflections".

Jason Scott Robert

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A survey of national ethics and bioethics committees.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2021
    Article
  2. Editors' overview: forbidding science?Science and engineering ethics · 2009
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jason Scott RobertCenter for Biology and Society and School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501, USA. Jason.Robert@asu.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been argued that bioethicists too often tend to represent the interests of scientists and not of the broader polity. Indeed, bioethicists seem predisposed to discard the voices and viewpoints of all but the cognoscenti. Focusing particularly on human pluripotent stem cell research, this commentary explores a variety of characterizations of bioethics and bioethicists in relation to forbidding science. Rather than proselytizing or prohibiting, bioethicists should work in partnership with scientists and publics to craft scientifically well-informed and morally sophisticated debates about forbidding science.

Indexed as

BioethicsEthicistsEthics, ResearchBiomedical ResearchEmbryo ResearchHumansMoral ObligationsPluripotent Stem CellsProfessional Role

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.