Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42201630›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2026

Bioethics-in-Science : An Invitation.

Daan Kenis, Ina Devos, Kristien Hens, Emma Moormann, Varsha Aravind Paleri

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Imagining an ethics for synthetic biology.Frontiers in genetics · 2026
    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

5 authors.

Daan KenisCentre for Ethics, Department of Philosophy, Universiteit Antwerp-Stadscampus, 2000, Antwerpen, Belgium. daan.kenis@uantwerpen.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3105-8251
Ina DevosCentre for Ethics, Department of Philosophy, Universiteit Antwerp-Stadscampus, 2000, Antwerpen, Belgium.
Kristien HensCentre for Ethics, Department of Philosophy, Universiteit Antwerp-Stadscampus, 2000, Antwerpen, Belgium.
Emma MoormannCentre for Ethics, Department of Philosophy, Universiteit Antwerp-Stadscampus, 2000, Antwerpen, Belgium.
Varsha Aravind PaleriCentre for Ethics, Department of Philosophy, Universiteit Antwerp-Stadscampus, 2000, Antwerpen, Belgium.

Funding

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 1112425NFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek FN 701000004Horizon Europe 101057385Horizon Europe 101095435Special Research Fund (iBOF) iBOF/21/092Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation 22.00277UK Research and Innovation 10039383
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper proposes using the term "Bioethics-in-Science" (BiS) to denote and delineate a set of emerging methodological approaches entangling bioethical inquiry directly within scientific practice. Drawing inspiration from Van Rensselaer Potter's original vision of bioethics as a collaborative bridge between biology and ethics, BiS represents a community of practice aiming to contribute to bioethical inquiry in three key ways. First, it reframes the relationship between ethics and science by treating scientific practice as inherently value-laden and recognizing scientists' relevant ethical expertise. Second, it develops methods-including ethics notebooks, collaborative workshops, and conceptual mapping-which facilitate a shift from mere external evaluation towards continuous ethical deliberation within research environments. Third, it demonstrates how bioethical inquiry can actively contribute to improving scientific practice through the co-creation of knowledge and values. Through case studies from synthetic biology, neurodiversity research, and proteomics, we illustrate how BiS arose from and operates in practice, and examine the challenges of crossing disciplinary boundaries. As such, we position BiS as offering a pathway for bioethical inquiry to move beyond its peripheral position vis-à-vis the sciences and engage meaningfully with the normative dimensions of scientific knowledge production instead, ultimately contributing to both better ethics and science.

Indexed as

BioethicsEmbedded ethicsEmpirical bioethicsMethodological pluralismVan Rensselaer Potter

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.