Chapter 2. The Public Evaluation of Science and Technology

  1. John Bryant Professor2,
  2. Dr Linda Baggott la Velle3,
  3. Revd Dr John Searle4
  1. Barry Barnes

Published Online: 18 APR 2002

DOI: 10.1002/0470846593.ch2

Bioethics for Scientists

Bioethics for Scientists

How to Cite

Barnes, B. (2002) The Public Evaluation of Science and Technology, in Bioethics for Scientists (eds J. Bryant, L. B. la Velle and J. Searle), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK. doi: 10.1002/0470846593.ch2

Editor Information

  1. 2

    School of Biological Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

  2. 3

    Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

  3. 4

    Exeter & District Hospice, Exeter, UK

Author Information

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QJ, UK, Phone 01392 263279, Fax 01392 263285

Publication History

  1. Published Online: 18 APR 2002
  2. Published Print: 31 MAR 2002

ISBN Information

Print ISBN: 9780471495321

Online ISBN: 9780470846599

SEARCH

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.