Of course (as sociologists would predict) the place of social science in bioethics varies by cultural and social context. In the Netherlands and Belgium, the creation of “empirical bioethics” has given social science an established voice in the bioethical conversation (Borry et al. 2005; Stolper et al. 2020; Van der Scheer and Widdershoven 2004). In France, bioethics is analyzed in Foucault’s terms of “bio -politics” (Fassin 2012). In North America and the UK, social science methods are widely used in bioethics, but social scientists remain, to a certain extent, strangers to the field (De Vries 2004; Hedgecoe 2004). There are advantages to both insider and outsider statuses. We North Americans who stand at a distance from bioethics can take comfort in Simmel’s (Simmel [1908] 1971) observation that the stranger “is freer practically and theoretically … he surveys conditions with less prejudice [and] is not tied down in his action by habit, piety, and precedent.” Simmel pointed out that those who do not “own the soil” are in a unique position, one that combines nearness and distance, indifference and involvement, a social location that allows them to become the recipients of a “most surprising openness” from group members.
On the other hand, there are undeniable benefits that come with “owning the soil” of bioethics. The collaborative work that gets done under the rubric of empirical bioethics moves the important ideas of philosophical bioethics into the real world of medicine and medical research where human beings live and work and help and harm each other (Borry et al. 2004; De Vries 2017; Molewijk et al. 2003). This tension between the “voice in the wilderness” (that no one hears) and “going native” (thereby losing the distinctive, critical perspective offered by sociology) can be used productively: distance allows challenges to the common-sense of bioethics, and closeness allows the analyses of social scientists to be incorporated into the work of bioethicists (Zussman 2000; De Vries et al. 2007).
Finally, bioethics can be viewed as an unsettled field, a project of modernity itself, a constant and tense relationship between reason and subject. Our Western culture evolved not from irrationality to rationality but from an integrated view of the universe, considered (in the Enlightenment model) as both rational and created by God, to a growing separation between the objective and subjective universes (Touraine 1995). The bioethical enterprise can be viewed as the reformulation of modernity, no longer a quest for a unified world or principle – be it rationalization, cultural identity, or any other principle – but as an inevitable tension between rationalization and individualism or subjectivism. If one component wins over the other, rationalization becomes an instrument of power and individualism a negative cultural identity (fundamentalism, nationalism, etc.). So, in a sense, the sociological critics of bioethics are both right and wrong: bioethics, as a critique of modernity, can only retain its vitality and be renewed by remaining unsettled, evolving in an ongoing process of disagreement and temporary consensus.
Notes
1 1. E. Durkheim. 1920. “Introduction à la morale,” Revue Philosophique, 89.
2 2. Michel Foucault, La Volonté de savoir. Histoire de la sexualité, vol. 1, Paris, Gallimard, 1976, chapitre V, “Droit de mort et pouvoir sur la vie,” p. 182.
3 3. Glaser and Strauss 1964; Quint 1972 and others. Even in medical literature a fair number of articles around truth-telling for example in cancer wards emerge at the same time.
4 4. There is a need in our society for a policy of deciding care according to individual situations as the parties most involved feel is correct (ibid.).
5 5. In re Quinlan (70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647 (NJ 1976).
6 6. The two authors participated in this two-day meeting.
7 7. The two authors co-organized this very first session in Durban followed by a second session, in 2010 at the ISA world congress in Goteborg, Sweden. (The ISA World Congress takes place every four years).
8 8. From 2000 to 2013, there were 2314 bioethics and applied ethics degrees granted. (Tia Powell & Melissa Kurtz, Graduate School Programs in Bioethics, Hastings Center: Bioethics Wire (Sept. 2014).
References
1 American Society for Bioethics and Humanities. 1998. Core Competencies for Health Care Ethics Consultation. Glenview, IL: American Society for Bioethics and Humanities.
2 Annas, Georges J. 1993. Standard of Care: The Law of American Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
3 Annas, Georges J. 2004. “Culture of Life’ Politics at the Bedside-The Case of Terri Schiavo.” New England Journal of Medicine 352: 1710–1715.
4 Annas, Georges J and Frances H Miller. 1994. “The Empire of Death: How Culture and Economics Affect Informed Consent in the US, the UK, and in Japan.” American Journal of Law & Medicine 20(4): 357–394.
5 Anspach, Renée. 1993. Deciding Who Lives: Fateful Choices in the Intensive Care Nursery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6 Anspach, Renée. 2010. “The Hostile Takeover of Bioethics by Religious Conservatives and the Counteroffensive.” Pp. 144–169 in Social Movements and the Transformation of American Health, edited by C. Banaszak-Holl Jane, R. Levitsky Sandra, and N. Zald Mayer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7 Aulisio, Mark, Robert Arnold, and Stuart Youngner. 2000. “Health Care Ethics Consultation: A Position Paper from the Society for Health and Human Values–Society for Bioethics Consultation Task Force on Standards for Bioethics Consultation.” Annals of Internal Medicine 133(1):59–69.
8 Beauchamp, Tom and James Childress. 1979. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
9 The Belmont Report. 1979. http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html
10 Borry, Pascal, Paul Schotsmans, and Kris Dierickx. 2004. “What Is the Role of Empirical Research in Bioethical Reflection and Decision-making? an Ethical Analysis.” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7(1):41–53.
11 Borry, Pascal, Paul Schotsmans, and Kris Dierickx. 2005. “The Birth of the Empirical Turn in Bioethics.” Bioethics 19(1):49–71.
12 Bosk, Charles. 1979. Forgive and Remember: Managing Medical Failure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13 Bosk, Charles. 1992. All God’s Mistakes: Genetic Counseling in a Pediatric Hospital. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14 Bosk, Charles. 2002. “Now that We Have the Data. What Was the Question?” American Journal of Bioethics 2(4):21–23.
15 Bosk, Charles. 2007. “The Sociological Imagination.” Pp. 398–410 in The Handbook of Medical Sociology, 5th ed., edited by E. Bird Chloe, Conrad Peter, and M. Fremont Allen. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16 Bosk C. 2008. What Would You Do?: Juggling Bioethics and Ethnography. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press.
17 Bosk, Charles and Raymond De Vries. 2008. “Bureaucracies of Mass Deception: Institutional Review Boards and the Ethics of Ethnographic Research.” Pp 187–206 in What Would You Do? the Collision of Ethics and Ethnography, Bosk, Charles. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18 Bosk, Charles and Joel Frader. 1998. “Institutional Ethics