2. Chapter 2. The Public Evaluation of Science and Technology
3. Chapter 2. The Public Evaluation of Science and Technology Debate in bioethics is part of the process that places science and technology within cultural tradition.
4. Chapter 2. The Public Evaluation of Science and Technology Views of science and technology have changed; the expertise of scientists is now evaluated and often challenged.
5. Chapter 2. The Public Evaluation of Science and Technology In a post-modern context, the opinion of a non-expert is as valid as that of an expert, especially if it seems that institutionalised expertise takes no note of public concern.
6. Chapter 2. The Public Evaluation of Science and Technology This has led to increased influence of campaigning groups who, for their own ends, may exploit public concerns in order to prevent activities that the groups disapprove of and to engender further suspicion about institutionalised science.
7. Chapter 2. The Public Evaluation of Science and Technology Nevertheless, science itself remains pre-eminent as a source of cognitive authority but wider debate is needed about its application.
8. Chapter 2. The Public Evaluation of Science and Technology For example, a simple utilitarianism is not enough to evaluate technologies whose applications in medicine may affect profoundly our society.
9. Chapter 2. The Public Evaluation of Science and Technology Scientists should welcome and indeed be active participants in such ethical debate.
Editor's Notes
Keywords: bioethics; biotechnology; environment; evaluation; GM; market; risk; science; technology; utilitarian Summary Debate in bioethics is part of the process that places science and technology within cultural tradition. Views of science and technology have changed; the expertise of scientists is now evaluated and often challenged. In a post-modern context, the opinion of a non-expert is as valid as that of an expert, especially if it seems that institutionalised expertise takes no note of public concern. This has led to increased influence of campaigning groups who, for their own ends, may exploit public concerns in order to prevent activities that the groups disapprove of and to engender further suspicion about institutionalised science. Nevertheless, science itself remains pre-eminent as a source of cognitive authority but wider debate is needed about its application. For example, a simple utilitarianism is not enough to evaluate technologies whose applications in medicine may affect profoundly our society. Scientists should welcome and indeed be active participants in such ethical debate.
