
doi: 10.1353/ken.0.0281
pmid: 19623821
Many bioethicists are involved in political advocacy groups as well as scholarship, and this has led to controversy. The virtues that enable scholarship to flourish are in tension with those that are vital for effective participation in political advocacy groups. This produces conflicts for bioethicists that are as serious as financial conflicts of interest. These conflicts cannot simply be eliminated, however. Scholars are citizens who have reason to engage in political action in light of their scholarly conclusions, and bioethicists who are political advocates are thoughtful persons who have reason to engage in scholarship. At best, the conflicts can be mitigated.
Social Responsibility, Lobbying, Conflict of Interest, Interprofessional Relations, Politics, Truth Disclosure, Research Personnel, Ethics, Research, Conflict, Psychological, Knowledge, Ethicists, Humans, Fellowships and Scholarships
Social Responsibility, Lobbying, Conflict of Interest, Interprofessional Relations, Politics, Truth Disclosure, Research Personnel, Ethics, Research, Conflict, Psychological, Knowledge, Ethicists, Humans, Fellowships and Scholarships
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
