The Reach of Ethics: Politics, Bioethics & the Regulation of Social Inquiry

描述（由申请人提供）： 这是一个重新提交的建议，根据评论者的意见进行了修改，写一本关于扩大研究伦理监督范围的历史和政治的书。 在第二次世界大战后的几十年里，生物伦理学的出现是为了应对研究的滥用，并成为一种力量，无论是知识界还是制度界，都在界定哪些活动需要监督。20世纪90年代，人们努力扩大生物伦理学的范围，将其理解为一种道德推理体系和规范研究的手段。这种扩展的定义是试图确定不同形式的社会调查是否构成研究，因此是否应该受到生物伦理学的监督。但这一看似狭隘的定义问题实际上标志着一场关于不同调查模式是否应受到监督的斗争，并为不同学科和机构的优先事项、任务和问责范式之间的冲突创造了背景。社会探究的公共治理应该有多广泛？如何在自由调查、社会责任和公共问责之间取得平衡？不同领域的努力应遵循哪些规范？不同形式的社会调查是否需要不同的问责制度？ 挑战在于将关于监督的辩论理解为不同参与者、机构和利益之间的交锋。在这个关键时刻，我们需要的是绘制监督政治的政治地形图，说明在寻求知识的过程中，在社会责任及其必然结果问责制的相互竞争的概念背后所汇集的意识形态、制度和专业力量。那么，《伦理学的范围》将聚焦于20世纪90年代流行病学、公共卫生监督、质量改进和人种学方面的斗争，将它们置于20年前研究和监督框架的更广泛的历史背景下。但是，尽管这些章节集中在特定的争议上，但它们描述的关于监管的具体冲突不应被视为案例研究，也就是说，仅仅是例子的集合。相反，他们共同寻求揭示有争议领域的关键维度，这些领域定义了监管道德的政治。 该项目依靠档案研究和关键线人访谈。

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): This is a resubmitted proposal, revised in response to reviewer comments, to write a book on history and politics of efforts to extend the scope of ethical oversight of research. In the decades after World War II, bioethics emerged in response to research abuses and became a force-both intellectual and institutional-in defining the boundaries of what activities required oversight. The 1990s witnessed an effort to extend the reach of bioethics, understood as both a system of moral reasoning and a means for regulating research. This expansion has been defined by the attempt to determine whether or not different forms of social inquiry constitute research and, hence, ought to be subject to bioethical oversight. But this seemingly narrow definitional question in fact signals a struggle over whether different modes of inquiry should be subjected to oversight and creates the context for a clash of different disciplinary and institutional priorities, missions, and paradigms of accountability. How extensive should the public governance of social inquiry be? How should the balance between free inquiry, social responsibility, and public accountability be struck? What norms should inform efforts in different domains? Do different forms of social inquiry call for different systems of accountability? The challenge is to understand debates regarding oversight as encounters between different players, institutions, and interests. What is needed at this juncture is a mapping of the political topography of the politics of oversight that accounts for the ideological, institutional, and professional forces that have been marshaled behind competing conceptions of social responsibility and its corollary, accountability, in the search for knowledge. The Reach of Ethics, then, will focus on the battles over epidemiology, public health surveillance, quality improvement, and ethnography in the 1990s, placing them against the broader historical backdrop of how research and oversight was framed some two decades earlier. But, focused though they are on particular controversies, the chapters describing specific clashes over regulation should not be thought of as case studies-that is, as a mere collection of examples. Rather, they seek collectively to lay bare critical dimensions of the contested terrain that defines the politics of the ethics of regulation. The project relies both on archival research and key informant interviews.