Growth Of Bioethics

Brian Everill (The Scientist, April 1, 1996, page 13) errs twice in his reply to my letter of Feb. 5, 1996 [page 13] on cooperation between scientists and bioethicists. First, by extracting a clause and a phrase from my letter, then combining them in inverse order, he creates a pseudoquotation. What I actually wrote was " . . . just as bioethicists must learn the scientific facts about a subject before venturing ethical pronouncements on that subject, scientists ought to learn something about e

Arthur Galston
May 12, 1996

Brian Everill (The Scientist, April 1, 1996, page 13) errs twice in his reply to my letter of Feb. 5, 1996 [page 13] on cooperation between scientists and bioethicists. First, by extracting a clause and a phrase from my letter, then combining them in inverse order, he creates a pseudoquotation. What I actually wrote was " . . . just as bioethicists must learn the scientific facts about a subject before venturing ethical pronouncements on that subject, scientists ought to learn something about ethical theories and their possible use in the resolution of ethical dilemmas." I see no reason to change that statement.

Everill then suggests that anyone interested in biology attend biology courses and those interested in theories of ethics seek out a philosophy department. That's fine as far as it goes, but do we stop there? Is there to be no interdisciplinary training and thought? Should...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?