Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28733796›Full record

ReviewMedicine, health care, and philosophy2018

Beyond integrating social sciences: Reflecting on the place of life sciences in empirical bioethics methodologies.

Marcel Mertz, Jan Schildmann

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Critical bioethics: a new paradigm for the era of techno-feudalism.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Marcel MertzInstitute for History, Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hanover, Germany. Mertz.Marcel@mh-hannover.de.
Jan SchildmannInstitute for Ethics, Wilhelm Löhe University of Applied Science, Fürth Merkurstraße 41/Südstadtpark, 90763, Fürth, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BioethicsEmpirical ResearchEthical TheoryEvidence-Based MedicineEthical AnalysisHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationEmpirical bioethicsEmpirically informed bioethicsEmpirical research in ethicsEvidence-based ethicsInterdisciplinary researchLife sciences

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.