“生物伦理学:什么?,为什么?’:重新审视。

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1111/bioe.13391
Udo Schuklenk
{"title":"“生物伦理学:什么?,为什么?’:重新审视。","authors":"Udo Schuklenk","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Ruth Chadwick and I have been editors-in-chief of the journal for the last 25 years. We have tried to steward it to the best of our ability, and we have aimed to keep it true to its founders’ mission. That means, first and foremost, <i>Bioethics</i> is a journal that publishes primarily philosophical bioethics content. This scope limitation has—over the years—given rise to criticism from various quarters that didn't see themselves represented in the pages of the journal. <i>Bioethics</i> never claimed to represent every activity that goes under the label ‘bioethics’.</p><p>I want to take the opportunity this Editorial affords me to address some of these criticisms.</p><p>Some members of the bioethics community have criticized this—as well as other—journal(s) for being ‘too quiet’ when it comes to shocking human rights abuses, as is currently the case in the Gaza war, Yemen, Ukraine, etc. And it is true, we have not issued editorials condemning the activities of the Israel army in Gaza, or Russia's attacks on civilian infrastructure in the Ukraine. Like you, I have strong personal views on these conflicts, but these views are not significantly informed by my bioethics expertise. There are specific bioethics issues within the context of these conflicts that are worth addressing, such as the professional obligations of healthcare professionals to enemy combatants, terrorists with and without inverted commas, military attacks on healthcare facilities suspected of being used as shields by a group in the conflict, to name but a few. However, who the guilty party is in terms of what caused the Gaza conflict is not a bioethics issue. Accordingly, it is not a topic that will be litigated in the journal. This doesn't mean that we don't have views on these issues—like you, we are not intransigent to human suffering and injustice—but we don't have views on these issues in our role as editors of this journal. There are other academic journals that have a specialist focus on the ethical issues raised by these sorts of conflicts. Colleagues wishing to publish content on these topics should consider submitting their content to these kinds of publications, where their articles will be reviewed by academic peers with the relevant subject expertise. My good intentions and strong personal convictions do not make me an expert on war.</p><p>Every now and then colleagues who are—rightly—concerned about our abuse of non-human animals, as well as our destruction of the environment, ask us to increase the scope of the journal to include such matters, too. As you will note from my own positioning, I concur with these colleagues that these issues are both extremely important, and also that they are—like the war and human rights issue—legitimate subjects of ethical inquiry. However, as far as human bioethics is concerned, they are clearly not within the scope of the journal that Kuhse and Singer envisaged. As it happens, and much like in the case of the topic I discussed above, there are subject-specific journals that cover these areas. There is no reason why <i>Bioethics</i> should aim to cover every topic that is vaguely related to bioethics. There is also no reason why a colleague who wishes to work on animal ethics issues should have to frame their engagement through a bioethics lens. Incidentally, where there is an overlap of bioethics and animal ethics issues, such as in the case of the ethics of xenotransplantation, we have encouraged and published such articles. The same holds true for environmental issues that have bioethical implications because of their health impacts.</p><p>Every few years, the issue of religion and bioethics arises again. As regular readers of this journal will know, I have views on this subject matter.2 This Editorial is not the place to repeat at length what I have said elsewhere. However, a few comments may be in order. This journal is <i>not</i> the right publication for authors wishing to interpret religious scripture, precisely because that kind of content can't ‘be defended from a universal or impartial perspective’ as Kuhse and Singer would rightly point out to us if we decided to publish such articles. That doesn't mean that such content is irrelevant, if for no reason other than the existence of a large number of patients and healthcare professionals who hold such beliefs. Thankfully, a philosopher God (pun intended) has offered a solution: Plato rightly suggested that even Gods would need to have good ethical reasons for their actions, so we might as well aim to discern what those ethical reasons are. Mere deference to religious authority, and religious scripture credited to that authority, doesn't do that. There are other problems as well with such approaches, of course. We don't know whether the religious authority actually is an authority (has the writer chosen the right religious authority, if any, among many competing religious authorities?), and also, and not unimportantly, religious reasoning as a justification for public policy is incompatible with safeguarding religious freedom in diverse societies. Humanity has learned this the hard way during, among others, the religious wars in Europe and many human lives lost. It strikes me as unfortunate that those advocating for the legitimacy of religious reasoning in philosophical bioethics habitually gloss over this history as if there were no lessons to be learned from what happened. Incidentally, these lessons led to state neutrality when it comes to matters of religion in liberal democracies. They led to progress.</p><p>However, as in the other areas mentioned, religion-specific bioethics journals have existed for many years, they also happen to be the right target for that sort of content. Their audiences typically share their—preferred—religious outlook, and certainly I can see no wrong with, for instance, Catholic bioethicists discussing bioethical issues through a sectarian Catholic lens in Catholic or Christian bioethics journals. Their findings may be of interest to other Catholics and Christians as well as those otherwise interested in Catholic outlooks on a particular bioethical question. But clearly, there is no universal appeal to that sort of output. If the Christian God isn't your God, for whatever reasons, Christian religious scripture and its textual interpretation by Christian bioethicists have no ethical lessons to teach you. The same holds true for interpretations of Islamic scripture and other religious documents.</p><p>There is a colloquial saying in German, ‘Schuster bleib bei Deinen Leisten’, which roughly translates into ‘shoemaker stick to your last’, and that's what we plan to do with this journal. It matters to recognize the limits of one's expertise. It also matters to exercise caution when it comes to drawing boundaries and excluding content that isn't within the scope of the journal. We don't do that without giving due considerations to the views of those who disagree with us. That said, we are Editors of this journals, and we are human, we have made mistakes in our editorial judgment in the past, and at some point we will likely do so again, despite our best efforts. We appreciate that religious writers desire to see their religious content in the journal, but given its history and mission <i>Bioethics</i> isn't the right publication for their work. Not everything needs to be said and published in <i>Bioethics</i>, even if some bioethicists feel strongly about particular issues that are outside the remit of the journal. We will limit ourselves to what we—and our reviewers—are knowledgeable of. For everything else, there are other publications, other experts, and other audiences.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"39 2","pages":"161-162"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.13391","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Bioethics: What? and why?’ : Revisited\",\"authors\":\"Udo Schuklenk\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bioe.13391\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Ruth Chadwick and I have been editors-in-chief of the journal for the last 25 years. We have tried to steward it to the best of our ability, and we have aimed to keep it true to its founders’ mission. That means, first and foremost, <i>Bioethics</i> is a journal that publishes primarily philosophical bioethics content. This scope limitation has—over the years—given rise to criticism from various quarters that didn't see themselves represented in the pages of the journal. <i>Bioethics</i> never claimed to represent every activity that goes under the label ‘bioethics’.</p><p>I want to take the opportunity this Editorial affords me to address some of these criticisms.</p><p>Some members of the bioethics community have criticized this—as well as other—journal(s) for being ‘too quiet’ when it comes to shocking human rights abuses, as is currently the case in the Gaza war, Yemen, Ukraine, etc. And it is true, we have not issued editorials condemning the activities of the Israel army in Gaza, or Russia's attacks on civilian infrastructure in the Ukraine. Like you, I have strong personal views on these conflicts, but these views are not significantly informed by my bioethics expertise. There are specific bioethics issues within the context of these conflicts that are worth addressing, such as the professional obligations of healthcare professionals to enemy combatants, terrorists with and without inverted commas, military attacks on healthcare facilities suspected of being used as shields by a group in the conflict, to name but a few. However, who the guilty party is in terms of what caused the Gaza conflict is not a bioethics issue. Accordingly, it is not a topic that will be litigated in the journal. This doesn't mean that we don't have views on these issues—like you, we are not intransigent to human suffering and injustice—but we don't have views on these issues in our role as editors of this journal. There are other academic journals that have a specialist focus on the ethical issues raised by these sorts of conflicts. Colleagues wishing to publish content on these topics should consider submitting their content to these kinds of publications, where their articles will be reviewed by academic peers with the relevant subject expertise. My good intentions and strong personal convictions do not make me an expert on war.</p><p>Every now and then colleagues who are—rightly—concerned about our abuse of non-human animals, as well as our destruction of the environment, ask us to increase the scope of the journal to include such matters, too. As you will note from my own positioning, I concur with these colleagues that these issues are both extremely important, and also that they are—like the war and human rights issue—legitimate subjects of ethical inquiry. However, as far as human bioethics is concerned, they are clearly not within the scope of the journal that Kuhse and Singer envisaged. As it happens, and much like in the case of the topic I discussed above, there are subject-specific journals that cover these areas. There is no reason why <i>Bioethics</i> should aim to cover every topic that is vaguely related to bioethics. There is also no reason why a colleague who wishes to work on animal ethics issues should have to frame their engagement through a bioethics lens. Incidentally, where there is an overlap of bioethics and animal ethics issues, such as in the case of the ethics of xenotransplantation, we have encouraged and published such articles. The same holds true for environmental issues that have bioethical implications because of their health impacts.</p><p>Every few years, the issue of religion and bioethics arises again. As regular readers of this journal will know, I have views on this subject matter.2 This Editorial is not the place to repeat at length what I have said elsewhere. However, a few comments may be in order. This journal is <i>not</i> the right publication for authors wishing to interpret religious scripture, precisely because that kind of content can't ‘be defended from a universal or impartial perspective’ as Kuhse and Singer would rightly point out to us if we decided to publish such articles. That doesn't mean that such content is irrelevant, if for no reason other than the existence of a large number of patients and healthcare professionals who hold such beliefs. Thankfully, a philosopher God (pun intended) has offered a solution: Plato rightly suggested that even Gods would need to have good ethical reasons for their actions, so we might as well aim to discern what those ethical reasons are. Mere deference to religious authority, and religious scripture credited to that authority, doesn't do that. There are other problems as well with such approaches, of course. We don't know whether the religious authority actually is an authority (has the writer chosen the right religious authority, if any, among many competing religious authorities?), and also, and not unimportantly, religious reasoning as a justification for public policy is incompatible with safeguarding religious freedom in diverse societies. Humanity has learned this the hard way during, among others, the religious wars in Europe and many human lives lost. It strikes me as unfortunate that those advocating for the legitimacy of religious reasoning in philosophical bioethics habitually gloss over this history as if there were no lessons to be learned from what happened. Incidentally, these lessons led to state neutrality when it comes to matters of religion in liberal democracies. They led to progress.</p><p>However, as in the other areas mentioned, religion-specific bioethics journals have existed for many years, they also happen to be the right target for that sort of content. Their audiences typically share their—preferred—religious outlook, and certainly I can see no wrong with, for instance, Catholic bioethicists discussing bioethical issues through a sectarian Catholic lens in Catholic or Christian bioethics journals. Their findings may be of interest to other Catholics and Christians as well as those otherwise interested in Catholic outlooks on a particular bioethical question. But clearly, there is no universal appeal to that sort of output. If the Christian God isn't your God, for whatever reasons, Christian religious scripture and its textual interpretation by Christian bioethicists have no ethical lessons to teach you. The same holds true for interpretations of Islamic scripture and other religious documents.</p><p>There is a colloquial saying in German, ‘Schuster bleib bei Deinen Leisten’, which roughly translates into ‘shoemaker stick to your last’, and that's what we plan to do with this journal. It matters to recognize the limits of one's expertise. It also matters to exercise caution when it comes to drawing boundaries and excluding content that isn't within the scope of the journal. We don't do that without giving due considerations to the views of those who disagree with us. That said, we are Editors of this journals, and we are human, we have made mistakes in our editorial judgment in the past, and at some point we will likely do so again, despite our best efforts. We appreciate that religious writers desire to see their religious content in the journal, but given its history and mission <i>Bioethics</i> isn't the right publication for their work. Not everything needs to be said and published in <i>Bioethics</i>, even if some bioethicists feel strongly about particular issues that are outside the remit of the journal. We will limit ourselves to what we—and our reviewers—are knowledgeable of. For everything else, there are other publications, other experts, and other audiences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55379,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioethics\",\"volume\":\"39 2\",\"pages\":\"161-162\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.13391\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.13391\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.13391","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

露丝·查德威克和我在过去的25年里一直担任该杂志的主编。我们尽了最大的努力来管理它,我们的目标是让它忠实于创始人的使命。这意味着,首先,《生命伦理学》是一本主要发表哲学生命伦理学内容的杂志。多年来,这种范围的限制引起了来自各个方面的批评,他们认为自己没有在期刊的页面上得到体现。生命伦理学从未声称代表“生命伦理学”标签下的每一项活动。我想借这篇社论提供的机会,对其中一些批评作出回应。生物伦理学社区的一些成员批评该杂志——以及其他杂志——在涉及令人震惊的侵犯人权行为时“过于沉默”,就像目前在加沙战争、也门、乌克兰等地的情况一样。的确,我们没有发表社论谴责以色列军队在加沙的活动,也没有谴责俄罗斯对乌克兰民用基础设施的袭击。和你一样,我对这些冲突有强烈的个人观点,但这些观点并没有受到我的生物伦理学专业知识的显著影响。在这些冲突的背景下,有一些具体的生物伦理问题值得解决,例如医疗保健专业人员对敌方战斗人员的专业义务、带或不带引号的恐怖分子、对医疗保健设施的军事攻击,这些设施涉嫌被冲突中的某一团体用作盾牌,等等。然而,就导致加沙冲突的原因而言,谁是有罪的一方并不是一个生物伦理问题。因此,这不是一个将在杂志上提起诉讼的话题。这并不意味着我们对这些问题没有看法——像你们一样,我们对人类的苦难和不公正也不是不妥协的——但作为本刊的编辑,我们对这些问题没有看法。还有一些其他的学术期刊也有专门的专家来关注这类冲突引发的伦理问题。希望发表这些主题内容的同事应该考虑将他们的内容提交给这类出版物,他们的文章将由具有相关主题专长的学术同行进行审查。我的良好意愿和强烈的个人信念并不能使我成为战争专家。时不时地,那些对我们虐待非人类动物以及破坏环境感到担忧的同事们要求我们扩大期刊的范围,把这些问题也包括进去。正如你会从我自己的立场上注意到的,我同意这些同事的观点,即这些问题极其重要,而且它们就像战争和人权问题一样,是道德调查的合法主题。然而,就人类生命伦理学而言,它们显然不在Kuhse和Singer设想的期刊范围之内。碰巧的是,就像我上面讨论的主题一样,有一些特定学科的期刊涵盖了这些领域。没有理由认为生命伦理学应该涵盖每一个与生命伦理学模糊相关的话题。一个希望从事动物伦理问题研究的同事也没有理由必须从生物伦理的角度来看待他们的参与。顺便说一句,在生物伦理和动物伦理问题重叠的地方,比如在异种移植伦理的情况下,我们鼓励并发表了这样的文章。这同样适用于因其对健康的影响而涉及生物伦理的环境问题。每隔几年,宗教和生命伦理的问题就会再次出现。正如本刊的老读者所知,我对这个问题有自己的看法这篇社论不适合在这里详细地重复我在别处说过的话。然而,一些评论可能是有序的。这本杂志不适合那些希望解释宗教经文的作者,因为这种内容不能“从普遍或公正的角度进行辩护”,如果我们决定发表这样的文章,Kuhse和Singer会正确地向我们指出。这并不意味着这样的内容是无关紧要的,如果没有理由,除了存在大量的病人和医疗保健专业人员持有这样的信念。值得庆幸的是,哲学家上帝(双关语)提供了一个解决方案:柏拉图正确地提出,即使是上帝也需要为他们的行为提供良好的道德理由,所以我们不妨致力于辨别这些道德理由是什么。仅仅是对宗教权威的服从,以及对宗教经文的服从,并不能做到这一点。当然,这种方法也存在其他问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
‘Bioethics: What? and why?’ : Revisited

Ruth Chadwick and I have been editors-in-chief of the journal for the last 25 years. We have tried to steward it to the best of our ability, and we have aimed to keep it true to its founders’ mission. That means, first and foremost, Bioethics is a journal that publishes primarily philosophical bioethics content. This scope limitation has—over the years—given rise to criticism from various quarters that didn't see themselves represented in the pages of the journal. Bioethics never claimed to represent every activity that goes under the label ‘bioethics’.

I want to take the opportunity this Editorial affords me to address some of these criticisms.

Some members of the bioethics community have criticized this—as well as other—journal(s) for being ‘too quiet’ when it comes to shocking human rights abuses, as is currently the case in the Gaza war, Yemen, Ukraine, etc. And it is true, we have not issued editorials condemning the activities of the Israel army in Gaza, or Russia's attacks on civilian infrastructure in the Ukraine. Like you, I have strong personal views on these conflicts, but these views are not significantly informed by my bioethics expertise. There are specific bioethics issues within the context of these conflicts that are worth addressing, such as the professional obligations of healthcare professionals to enemy combatants, terrorists with and without inverted commas, military attacks on healthcare facilities suspected of being used as shields by a group in the conflict, to name but a few. However, who the guilty party is in terms of what caused the Gaza conflict is not a bioethics issue. Accordingly, it is not a topic that will be litigated in the journal. This doesn't mean that we don't have views on these issues—like you, we are not intransigent to human suffering and injustice—but we don't have views on these issues in our role as editors of this journal. There are other academic journals that have a specialist focus on the ethical issues raised by these sorts of conflicts. Colleagues wishing to publish content on these topics should consider submitting their content to these kinds of publications, where their articles will be reviewed by academic peers with the relevant subject expertise. My good intentions and strong personal convictions do not make me an expert on war.

Every now and then colleagues who are—rightly—concerned about our abuse of non-human animals, as well as our destruction of the environment, ask us to increase the scope of the journal to include such matters, too. As you will note from my own positioning, I concur with these colleagues that these issues are both extremely important, and also that they are—like the war and human rights issue—legitimate subjects of ethical inquiry. However, as far as human bioethics is concerned, they are clearly not within the scope of the journal that Kuhse and Singer envisaged. As it happens, and much like in the case of the topic I discussed above, there are subject-specific journals that cover these areas. There is no reason why Bioethics should aim to cover every topic that is vaguely related to bioethics. There is also no reason why a colleague who wishes to work on animal ethics issues should have to frame their engagement through a bioethics lens. Incidentally, where there is an overlap of bioethics and animal ethics issues, such as in the case of the ethics of xenotransplantation, we have encouraged and published such articles. The same holds true for environmental issues that have bioethical implications because of their health impacts.

Every few years, the issue of religion and bioethics arises again. As regular readers of this journal will know, I have views on this subject matter.2 This Editorial is not the place to repeat at length what I have said elsewhere. However, a few comments may be in order. This journal is not the right publication for authors wishing to interpret religious scripture, precisely because that kind of content can't ‘be defended from a universal or impartial perspective’ as Kuhse and Singer would rightly point out to us if we decided to publish such articles. That doesn't mean that such content is irrelevant, if for no reason other than the existence of a large number of patients and healthcare professionals who hold such beliefs. Thankfully, a philosopher God (pun intended) has offered a solution: Plato rightly suggested that even Gods would need to have good ethical reasons for their actions, so we might as well aim to discern what those ethical reasons are. Mere deference to religious authority, and religious scripture credited to that authority, doesn't do that. There are other problems as well with such approaches, of course. We don't know whether the religious authority actually is an authority (has the writer chosen the right religious authority, if any, among many competing religious authorities?), and also, and not unimportantly, religious reasoning as a justification for public policy is incompatible with safeguarding religious freedom in diverse societies. Humanity has learned this the hard way during, among others, the religious wars in Europe and many human lives lost. It strikes me as unfortunate that those advocating for the legitimacy of religious reasoning in philosophical bioethics habitually gloss over this history as if there were no lessons to be learned from what happened. Incidentally, these lessons led to state neutrality when it comes to matters of religion in liberal democracies. They led to progress.

However, as in the other areas mentioned, religion-specific bioethics journals have existed for many years, they also happen to be the right target for that sort of content. Their audiences typically share their—preferred—religious outlook, and certainly I can see no wrong with, for instance, Catholic bioethicists discussing bioethical issues through a sectarian Catholic lens in Catholic or Christian bioethics journals. Their findings may be of interest to other Catholics and Christians as well as those otherwise interested in Catholic outlooks on a particular bioethical question. But clearly, there is no universal appeal to that sort of output. If the Christian God isn't your God, for whatever reasons, Christian religious scripture and its textual interpretation by Christian bioethicists have no ethical lessons to teach you. The same holds true for interpretations of Islamic scripture and other religious documents.

There is a colloquial saying in German, ‘Schuster bleib bei Deinen Leisten’, which roughly translates into ‘shoemaker stick to your last’, and that's what we plan to do with this journal. It matters to recognize the limits of one's expertise. It also matters to exercise caution when it comes to drawing boundaries and excluding content that isn't within the scope of the journal. We don't do that without giving due considerations to the views of those who disagree with us. That said, we are Editors of this journals, and we are human, we have made mistakes in our editorial judgment in the past, and at some point we will likely do so again, despite our best efforts. We appreciate that religious writers desire to see their religious content in the journal, but given its history and mission Bioethics isn't the right publication for their work. Not everything needs to be said and published in Bioethics, even if some bioethicists feel strongly about particular issues that are outside the remit of the journal. We will limit ourselves to what we—and our reviewers—are knowledgeable of. For everything else, there are other publications, other experts, and other audiences.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信