Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

The complexity of bioethics

Nature Biotechnology volume 19, page 1007 (2001)Cite this article

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Like it or not, the biological sciences of today are embedded as never before in a world of fractured social, economic, and political concerns. In this world, it becomes increasingly difficult to discuss all the relationships between the deployment of science-based technology and the many relationships and impacts that deployment might have outside of science/technology, which is usually defined (as it must be) in the confined terms of laboratory experiments. The narrow focus on separated aspects of science in society makes difficult any coherent discussion of ethical principles that might serve to guide us in the use of new and potentially dangerous technologies. However, a way of bridging these separations may be found using the ethical principles found in science itself.

Scientists in the laboratory, corporate researchers and managers who bring the technology/product to the marketplace, individuals who ultimately apply the technology/product in the real world (farmers or physicians), and end users (consumers, patients, or their representatives) all have responsibilities that are shaped by very different concerns and motives. Public discourse on science is mostly fractured, broken into pieces, where each aspect is discussed separately; the whole picture is made to appear usually as just one part, perhaps more, but never all the parts. Thus, the assumptions of each of the above groups tend to be hidden from all the others. The separation of assumptions is inherently dangerous, especially the scientific assumptions. Scientists' lack of exposure to criticism and rigorous testing in the larger world of application, whether in cornfields or medical centers, exacerbates their incomprehension of public resistance and debate.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Popper, K. The logic of scientific discovery. (Routledge, Hutchinson, New York,1959).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Whitehead, A.N. Science and the modern world. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1925).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kuhn, T. The structure of scientific revolutions. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago; 1996)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Palumbi, S.R. Science 293, 1786–1790 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lewontin, R. The triple helix. (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA; 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rajan, T.V. The Scientist 15, 6 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, 229 Stanley Hall #3206, Berkeley, 94720-3206, CA

    Richard C. Strohman

Authors
  1. Richard C. Strohman
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Strohman, R. The complexity of bioethics. Nat Biotechnol 19, 1007 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1101-1007

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1101-1007

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing