The commercial exploitation of ethics

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 35 (1):145-153 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In the first part of this paper I consider whether an academic bioethicist is likely to change the arguments she is prepared to voice if she is in receipt of payment from a corporation. I argue that she is not, so long as a number of conditions are met regarding the size of payment, the values of the academic bioethics community, the degree to which she participates in that community, and the transparency of corporate involvements. In the second half I consider a different concern that one might have with corporate payments that relate to the dubious nature of the functions bioethicists might play within those corporations. I argue that three roles—those of marketer, expert and lobbyist—are best avoided, but that a fourth—the dialectical role—does provide a legitimate niche within which a bioethicist may offer consultation

Other Versions

original Lewens, Tim (2003) "The commercial exploitation of ethics". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 35(1):145-153

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,597

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Is corporate money bad for bioethics?John Mcmillan - 2003 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 35 (1):167-175.
Is corporate money bad for bioethics?John McMillan - 2004 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 35 (1):167-175.
Quasi-independence, fitness, and advantageousness.Kevin Brosnan - 2009 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40 (3):228-234.
Selection explanations of token traits.Brian McLoone - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (3):342-346.
What is the value of historical fidelity in restoration?Justin Garson - 2014 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 45 (1):97-100.
Reflections on Competition and Nature Sports.Kevin Krein - 2015 - Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 9 (3):271-286.
Generalizations and kinds in natural science: the case of species.Thomas A. Reydon - 2004 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (2):230-255.
Is there a nexus between reasons and rationality?Michael Smith - 2007 - Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 94 (1):279-298.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-30

Downloads
45 (#495,746)

6 months
12 (#304,424)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Tim Lewens
Cambridge University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Deciding to trust, coming to believe.Richard Holton - 1994 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72 (1):63 – 76.
Is the precautionary principle unscientific?David B. Resnik - 2003 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 34 (2):329-344.
Throwing a bone to the watchdog.Carl Elliott - 2001 - Hastings Center Report 31 (2):9-12.

View all 9 references / Add more references