{"title":"生物伦理是一个动态问题:在研究设计中理解和应用伦理的整体方法","authors":"Taiye Winful","doi":"10.1353/hub.2017.a925560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Anthropologists have challenged bioethicists to incorporate more holistic approaches to applying ethics\nin real-world situations. Where bioethicists tend to use systematic philosophical approaches to moral\ndilemmas, anthropologists apply malleable approaches designed to be responsive to variable cultural\ncontexts. For example, in decision making anthropologists emphasize the importance of community\nand the effects of social issues, political economy, and cultural tradition. This difference in approaches\ncontributes to the contentious relationship between anthropologists and bioethicists. Despite nuanced\nperspectives, anthropologists have not enjoyed a durable role in shaping contemporary bioethics. This\nlack of nuance becomes problematic when researchers attempt to reconcile ethical issues against a\nrigid standard of morality, rather than what Patricia Marshall defines as a “culturally constituted and\ncontinually evolving” process. Reflecting on the institutional review board (IRB) review of the author’s\nwork with African descendants in the United States and Nigeria, this discussion covers the importance\nof conceptualizing bioethics as a dynamic issue, especially when working with communities abroad.\nComparing these review processes reveals the organizational structures, influenced by culture and\nsociety, that impact decision making in respective communities. This contribution to the special issue\nsuggests that a focus on how IRB reviews are done can also offer insights and contextualization into\ncommunity decision making. Within a cross-cultural setting, considerations of the IRB review processes\ncan lead to more informed conversations on bioethics and can aid researchers in applying more holistic\napproaches to study design.","PeriodicalId":13053,"journal":{"name":"Human Biology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bioethics as a Dynamic Issue: Holistic Approaches to\\nUnderstanding and Applying Ethics to Study Design\",\"authors\":\"Taiye Winful\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/hub.2017.a925560\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Anthropologists have challenged bioethicists to incorporate more holistic approaches to applying ethics\\nin real-world situations. Where bioethicists tend to use systematic philosophical approaches to moral\\ndilemmas, anthropologists apply malleable approaches designed to be responsive to variable cultural\\ncontexts. For example, in decision making anthropologists emphasize the importance of community\\nand the effects of social issues, political economy, and cultural tradition. This difference in approaches\\ncontributes to the contentious relationship between anthropologists and bioethicists. Despite nuanced\\nperspectives, anthropologists have not enjoyed a durable role in shaping contemporary bioethics. This\\nlack of nuance becomes problematic when researchers attempt to reconcile ethical issues against a\\nrigid standard of morality, rather than what Patricia Marshall defines as a “culturally constituted and\\ncontinually evolving” process. Reflecting on the institutional review board (IRB) review of the author’s\\nwork with African descendants in the United States and Nigeria, this discussion covers the importance\\nof conceptualizing bioethics as a dynamic issue, especially when working with communities abroad.\\nComparing these review processes reveals the organizational structures, influenced by culture and\\nsociety, that impact decision making in respective communities. This contribution to the special issue\\nsuggests that a focus on how IRB reviews are done can also offer insights and contextualization into\\ncommunity decision making. Within a cross-cultural setting, considerations of the IRB review processes\\ncan lead to more informed conversations on bioethics and can aid researchers in applying more holistic\\napproaches to study design.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13053,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Biology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/hub.2017.a925560\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Biology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hub.2017.a925560","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Bioethics as a Dynamic Issue: Holistic Approaches to
Understanding and Applying Ethics to Study Design
Anthropologists have challenged bioethicists to incorporate more holistic approaches to applying ethics
in real-world situations. Where bioethicists tend to use systematic philosophical approaches to moral
dilemmas, anthropologists apply malleable approaches designed to be responsive to variable cultural
contexts. For example, in decision making anthropologists emphasize the importance of community
and the effects of social issues, political economy, and cultural tradition. This difference in approaches
contributes to the contentious relationship between anthropologists and bioethicists. Despite nuanced
perspectives, anthropologists have not enjoyed a durable role in shaping contemporary bioethics. This
lack of nuance becomes problematic when researchers attempt to reconcile ethical issues against a
rigid standard of morality, rather than what Patricia Marshall defines as a “culturally constituted and
continually evolving” process. Reflecting on the institutional review board (IRB) review of the author’s
work with African descendants in the United States and Nigeria, this discussion covers the importance
of conceptualizing bioethics as a dynamic issue, especially when working with communities abroad.
Comparing these review processes reveals the organizational structures, influenced by culture and
society, that impact decision making in respective communities. This contribution to the special issue
suggests that a focus on how IRB reviews are done can also offer insights and contextualization into
community decision making. Within a cross-cultural setting, considerations of the IRB review processes
can lead to more informed conversations on bioethics and can aid researchers in applying more holistic
approaches to study design.
期刊介绍:
Human Biology publishes original scientific articles, brief communications, letters to the editor, and review articles on the general topic of biological anthropology. Our main focus is understanding human biological variation and human evolution through a broad range of approaches.
We encourage investigators to submit any study on human biological diversity presented from an evolutionary or adaptive perspective. Priority will be given to interdisciplinary studies that seek to better explain the interaction between cultural processes and biological processes in our evolution. Methodological papers are also encouraged. Any computational approach intended to summarize cultural variation is encouraged. Studies that are essentially descriptive or concern only a limited geographic area are acceptable only when they have a wider relevance to understanding human biological variation.
Manuscripts may cover any of the following disciplines, once the anthropological focus is apparent: human population genetics, evolutionary and genetic demography, quantitative genetics, evolutionary biology, ancient DNA studies, biological diversity interpreted in terms of adaptation (biometry, physical anthropology), and interdisciplinary research linking biological and cultural diversity (inferred from linguistic variability, ethnological diversity, archaeological evidence, etc.).