Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26260624›Full record

ArticleMedical humanities2015

Enhancement, ethics and society: towards an empirical research agenda for the medical humanities and social sciences.

Martyn Pickersgill, Linda Hogle

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical humanities, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Martyn PickersgillUsher Institute for Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9807-9148
Linda HogleDepartment of Medical History and Bioethics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
The Queen's Medical Research Institute · GBUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

Wellcome Trust 106612/Z/14/ZWellcome Trust WT087439MF
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For some time now, bioethicists have paid close attention to issues associated with 'enhancement'; specifically, the appropriate use and regulation of substances and artefacts understood by some to improve the functioning of human bodies beyond that associated with 'normal' function. Medical humanities scholars (aside from philosophers and lawyers) and social scientists have not been frequent participants in debates around enhancement, but could shine a bright light on the range of dilemmas and opportunities techniques of enhancement are purported to introduce. In this paper, we argue that empirical research into the notion and practice of enhancement is necessary and timely. Such work could fruitfully engage with-and further develop-existing conceptual repertoires within the medical humanities and social sciences in ways that would afford benefit to scholars in those disciplines. We maintain that empirical engagements could also provide important resources to bioethicists seeking to regulate new enhancements in ways that are sensitive to societal context and cultural difference. To this end, we outline an empirical agenda for the medical humanities and social sciences around enhancement, emphasising especially how science and technology studies could bring benefits to-and be benefitted by-research in this area. We also use the example of (pharmaceutical) cognitive enhancement to show how empirical studies of actual and likely enhancement practices can nuance resonant bioethical debates.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyEmpirical ResearchHumanitiesSocial ResponsibilitySocial SciencesBiomedical EnhancementCognitionHumansHealth policyPublic health

Identifiers

PMID26260624
PMCPMC4717454
OpenAlexW1874101032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.