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

描述(由申请人提供)： 这是一份重新提交的提案，根据评论家的评论进行了修改，目的是写一本关于历史和政治的书，努力扩大对研究的伦理监督范围。 在第二次世界大战后的几十年里，生物伦理学因研究滥用而出现，并成为一种力量--无论是智力上的还是制度上的--界定哪些活动需要监督的界限。20世纪90年代，人们努力扩大生物伦理学的研究范围，生物伦理学既被理解为一种道德推理体系，也被视为规范研究的一种手段。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，因此应该受到生物伦理监督。但这个看似狭隘的定义问题实际上表明，在不同的调查模式是否应受到监督的问题上存在斗争，并为不同的纪律和机构优先事项、任务和问责模式之间的冲突创造了背景。社会调查的公共治理应该有多大的广度？如何在自由查询、社会责任和公众问责之间取得平衡？哪些规范应该为不同领域的努力提供指导？不同形式的社会调查是否需要不同的问责制度？ 挑战在于将有关监管的辩论理解为不同参与者、机构和利益集团之间的冲突。此时此刻，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，社会责任及其必然结果--责任--背后的意识形态、制度和专业力量。因此，《伦理学的影响范围》将把重点放在20世纪90年代关于流行病学、公共卫生监测、质量改进和人种学的斗争上，将它们置于大约20年前研究和监督是如何框架的更广泛的历史背景中。但是，尽管它们聚焦于特定的争议，但描述监管方面具体冲突的章节不应被视为案例研究--也就是说，仅仅是例子的集合。相反，他们集体寻求揭露这一有争议领域的关键维度，这些领域定义了监管伦理的政治层面。 该项目依赖于档案研究和关键线人的采访。

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.