The Legitimacy of Bioethics
These sentiments deconstructed, however, represent both positive and negative attitudes toward bioethics. On one hand, his attack was not on the discipline itself, but was rather on those individuals who are taking advantage of it to further their own careers by shifting to a field that has had little time to develop experts and a standardized method of training professionals for the undertakings of the work – a notion that has become increasingly apparent with recent controversy, i.e. Terri Schiavo debacle and the endless debate over stem cells. In one sense, his comment should be commended for drawing attention to the lack of qualified professionals in the field. On the other hand, it implies that there is no one qualified who is effectively working on greater bioethical concerns – an assertion I think is simply not true.
Bioethics is an extremely interdisciplinary field that requires the input of a variety of informed individuals, including, but not exclusively, experts in philosophy and science. I firmly believe that someone can be a philosopher or scientist with bioethical interests, but it is dangerous to consider any one of these professionals a bioethicist without proper grounding in several of the disciplines that feed the field. Inherent in its name alone, there are two represented fields – biology and ethics. For the discipline to maintain its legitimacy I think it is best if specialized individuals in the field refrain from calling themselves bioethicists unless they have well-founded knowledge in several of the sub-disciplines of the field.
How then can we gain a field of legitimate bioethicists? No doubt education is a key step in this process – both formal in universities and informal in the public arena. Because bioethics requires the input of so many disciplines – philosophy, science, theology, etc. dialogue is an absolutely necessary component for this process. Unfortunately, dialogue is not something that is easy to acquire. During my time spent studying at Harvard, I have found that compartmentalization of individuals runs rampant through academic and professional spheres. No doubt it has improved over the past century with advances in communication and technology.
Nonetheless, specialists in any field have a tendency to place their work above all others’, understandably so, as long as he or she can recognize the import of others’ work. To borrow a few terms that are commonly associated with the study of religion, we need to minimize exclusivist thinking and pluralize academic habits, especially in a field such as bioethics that is defined by its interdisciplinary nature. Individuals from a variety of fields must place their respective boxes into a larger interdisciplinary box and engage in dialectic relationships with others to serve our common goals.
In the past, interdisciplinary bioethical dialogue has flourished on a conditional basis – the best conditions being those in which science has made a noticeable negative impact on human morality and/or sensitivities. For example, the post WWII realization of Nazi atrocities resulted in the Nuremberg Trials and Nuremberg Code to guard against future carnage of a similar sort. Residual sentiments lingered and combined with advances in medical science in the 1960s to spawn a multitude of conferences that attempted to address ethical dilemmas facing modern biology and medicine.
In attendance at the infamous Dartmouth Conference of 1960 (a conference that dealt with some serious bioethical issues, though it was in an era that predated the actual term ‘bioethics’) was the famed science fiction author, Aldous Huxley. His presence as a popular media figure suggests the importance of popular opinion with regard to these issues. His work, Brave New World, incited interest in them, and with popular ownership of such ideas, gained the power to influence change in the real world that parallels his fictional one.
The 1960s witnessed a variety conferences that served similar purposes in increasing awareness and expressing concerns over new technologies. In the late 1960s Dan Callahan joined forces with Willard Gaylin and a handful of other notable scientists and scholars to form the Hastings Center (a leading bioethics research center). Doing so signified a huge step in the effort to form a collective group to analyze and advise on a variety of bioethical concerns. The group formed as an independent center outside of the university, and succeeded in forming an interdisciplinary group uninhibited by the academic world. Their group has amassed great influence in the field, yet is still unparalleled in influence when compared to the media and public opinion.
Today, scientists continue on with research, virtually unaffected by ethical implications until the public gets a hold of what they are doing and forces them to reevaluate their research. Such disregard for ethical issues on the part of scientists is not so much the result of maleficence as it is the inability to think outside of their compartmentalized sphere. So, it then becomes the job of professionals in the field of bioethics to mediate between the researches and the public – assessing the situation, offering advice, and educating the concerned parties so that they can feel confident in their future.
Drawing from personal experience and contemporary bioethical discourse, I feel confident in saying one of the greatest challenges facing bioethics today is not anything medical or biological, but rather is the identity of the field itself. Illegitimates in the field, lack of dialogue amongst professional circles, the field’s interdisciplinary nature, and the conditional existence by which it enters the public sphere make it difficult to legitimize as a permanent and necessary fixture on the global scene. However, recent developments in technology, increased attention from Hollywood and other media outlets, and increased academic interest are bringing strength to the bioethical movement. Ultimately, I believe they have the power to establish it as an influential and indispensable discipline that is sure to persist as long as science and humanity coincide.
