Transatlantic Divergences in Citizen Science Ethics-Comparative Analysis of the DIYbio Code of Ethics Drafts of 2011.
Codes of ethics were drafted by participants in the European and North American Congresses of DIYbio, a single global organization of informal biotechnology practitioners, in 2011. In general, the existence of a code of ethics amongst a community is itself significant. Codes of professional ethics a...
| Publicado en: | NanoEthics Vol. 8; no. 2; pp. 187 - 193 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Aug2014
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=97432374&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 97432374 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 18714757 46ON jtl: NanoEthics issn: 18714757 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Aug2014 vid: 8 iid: 2 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 97432374 10.1007/s11569-014-0197-7 ppf: 187 ppct: 6 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 1.2MB tig: atl: Transatlantic Divergences in Citizen Science Ethics-Comparative Analysis of the DIYbio Code of Ethics Drafts of 2011. aug: au: Eggleson, Kathleen affil: Center for Nano Science and Technology, University of Notre Dame, 275 Fitzpatrick Hall Notre Dame 46556 USA su: Science & ethics Citizen science Comparative studies Biotechnology research Biotechnology Professional ethics Synthetic biology Ethics Societies sug: subj: Science & ethics Citizen science Comparative studies Biotechnology research Biotechnology Professional ethics Synthetic biology Ethics Societies keyword: Biocomplexity Biohacker Biotinker Code of ethics DIYbio iGEM Open access Transatlantic ab: Codes of ethics were drafted by participants in the European and North American Congresses of DIYbio, a single global organization of informal biotechnology practitioners, in 2011. In general, the existence of a code of ethics amongst a community is itself significant. Codes of professional ethics are common in scientific and engineering fields, as well as in DIY communities. It is also significant, and highly unusual, that DIYbio has maintained two separate codes of ethics years after their drafting. While agreement was reached within the congress for each geographic region, with considerable commonality between the two codes drafted, they are far from identical. There are differences in the ordering of items, the wording of common items, and the presence/absence of items. I will argue that these differences are meaningful, and consider them with respect to cultural variation, ethics, and societal implications. Finally, I recommend that the entire DIYbio organization unite under a single code of ethics, and that one of the existing drafts is superior to the other for this purpose. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: NanoEthics is a copyright of Springer, 2014. All Rights Reserved. item: NanoEthics holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2014 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|