ReviewMedicine, health care, and philosophy2018
Beyond integrating social sciences: Reflecting on the place of life sciences in empirical bioethics methodologies.
Review in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Critical bioethics: a new paradigm for the era of techno-feudalism.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- The Vagueness of Integrating the Empirical and the Normative: Researchers' Views on Doing Empirical Bioethics.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024Article
- Acceptable objectives of empirical research in bioethics: a qualitative exploration of researchers' views.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Doing things you never imagined: Professional and ethical issues in the U.S. outpatient physical therapy setting during the COVID-19 pandemic.Musculoskeletal science & practice · 2022Article
- Bio-Ethics and One Health: A Case Study Approach to Building Reflexive Governance.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Ethical conflicts during the process of deciding about ICU admission: an empirically driven ethical analysis.Journal of medical ethics · 2021Article
- Standards of practice in empirical bioethics research: towards a consensus.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Empirical bioethics is commonly understood as integrating empirical research with normative-ethical research in order to address an ethical issue. Methodological analyses in empirical bioethics mainly focus on the integration of socio-empirical sciences (e.g. sociology or psychology) and normative ethics. But while there are numerous multidisciplinary research projects combining life sciences and normative ethics, there is few explicit methodological reflection on how to integrate both fields, or about the goals and rationales of such interdisciplinary cooperation. In this paper we will review some drivers for the tendency of empirical bioethics methodologies to focus on the collaboration of normative ethics with particularly social sciences. Subsequently, we argue that the ends of empirical bioethics, not the empirical methods, are decisive for the question of which empirical disciplines can contribute to empirical bioethics in a meaningful way. Using already existing types of research integration as a springboard, five possible types of research which encompass life sciences and normative analysis will illustrate how such cooperation can be conceptualized from a methodological perspective within empirical bioethics. We will conclude with a reflection on the limitations and challenges of empirical bioethics research that integrates life sciences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28733796What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.