Values in Controversy
Stem Cell Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-928Keywords:
controversy, values, epistemic, non-epistemic, mother cellsAbstract
The scientific controversies are key moments in the analysis of the processes of scientific dynamics. In these, two types of values have been clearly identified: the epistemic and the non-epistemic. Among the second ones, we could consider those of moral and religious type. According to the deep results of the recent studies in cognitive processes by fMRI, we can include these values within the group of the epistemic. By means of the study of case of the controversy of the mother cells we will develop this idea.
Downloads
References
ALLCHIN, D. (1999): “Values in science: An educational perspective”, Science & Education, vol. 8, pp. 1-12.
ARSANJANI, M. (2006): “Negotiating the UN Declaration of Human Cloning”, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 100, n° 1, pp. 164-179.
BABBAGE, C. (1830): Reflections on the Decline of Science in England.
BAIN, B. (1952): “The scientist and his values”, Social Forces, vol. 31, n° 2, pp. 106-109.
CALVERT, J. (2006): “What’s special about Basic Research?”, Science, Technology and Human Values, vol. 31, n° 2, pp. 199- 220.
CANLI, T. y AMIN, Z (2002): “Neuroimaging of emotion and personality: Scientific evidence and ethical considerations”, Brain and cognition, vol. 50, pp. 414-431.
CASEBEER, W. (2003): “Moral cognition and its neural constituents”, Nature Neuroscience, vol. 4, pp. 841-846.
CUTCLIFFE, S. (2003): Ideas, máquinas y valores. Los estudios de Ciencia,
Tecnología y Sociedad, Barcelona, Anthropos.
DAMASIO, A. (1988): Descartes error, Cambridge, MIT Press.
DELGADO, M. (2006): La controversia de las células madre: Estado de la cuestión, Barcelona, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
DESMOND, J. y CHEN, A. (2002): “Ethical issues in the clinical application of fMRI: Factors affecting the validity and interpretations of activations”, Brain and Cognition, vol. 50, pp. 482-497.
ECHEVERRÍA, J. (2003): “Science, technology and values: towards an axiological análisis of techno-scientific inquiry”, Technology in society, vol. 25, pp. 205-215.
FARAH, M. (2005): “Neuroethics: the practical and the Philosophical”, Trends in cognitive Science, vol. 9, n° 1, pp. 34-40.
FREELAND JUDSON, H. (2006): Anatomía del fraude científico, Barcelona, Crítica.
GAZZANIGA, M. (2006): “Facts, Fictions and the future of neuroethics”, en Illes, J.(ed.), Neuroethics. Defining the issues in theory, practice, and policy, Nueva York, p. 143.
GRAHAM, L. R. (1981): Between science and values, Nueva York, Columbia University Press.
GREENE, J. (2003): “From neutral ‘is’ to moral ‘ought’: what are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology?”, Nature Neuroscience, vol. 4, pp. 847-850.
GREENE, J. et al. (2001): “An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgement”, Science, vol. 293, pp. 2105-2107.
HEFNER, P. (2001): “There’s an Elephant in the Living Room”, Dialog: a Journal of Theology, vol. 40, n° 4, 300-301.
HEMPEL, C. (1983): “Valuation and objectivity in science”, en Cohen, R. S. y Laudan, L. (eds.), Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalisys, Boston, Reiden Publishing Company.
JASANOFF, S., MARKLE, G., PETERSEN, J. y PINCH, T. (eds) (1994): Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Gran Bretaña, Sage Publications
KLITZMAN, R. (2006): “Clinicians, patients, and the brain”, en Illes, J. (ed.), Neuroethics. Defining the issues in theory, practice, and policy, Nueva York.
KOHN, A. (1988): Falsos profetas. Fraudes y errores en la ciencia, Madrid, Pirámide.
KUHN, T. S. (1977): The Essential Tension, Chicago, Chicago University Press.
LONGINO, H. (1981): “Beyond ‘Bad Science’. Skeptical Reflections on the value-freedom of Scientific Inquiry”, Science, Technology and Human Values. vol. 6, n° 34, pp. 25-30.
LONGINO, H. (1990): Science as Social Knowledge, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
MERTON, R. K. (1964): Teoría y estructuras sociales, México, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
MERTON, R. K.(1954): “Scientific fraud and the fight to be first”, Times Literary Supplement, 2 de noviembre de 1954.
NELKIN, D. (2004): “God Talk: Confussion Between Science and Religion”, Science, Technology and Human Values, vol. 29, pp. 139-152.
NELKIN, D. (1971): “Scientist in an Environmental Controversy”, Science Studies, vol. 1, n° 3, pp. 245-261.
OCHSNER. K. et al (2002): “Rethinking Feelings: An fMRI Study of the cognitive regulation of emotion”, Science, vol. 293, p. 2108.
ORTONY, A., CLORE, G. L. y COLLINS, A. (1988): The cognitive structure of emotions, Cambridge, Cambridge Universiy Press.
PHAN, L. et al (2002): “Functional Neuroanatomy of Emotion: A Meta-analysis of Emotion Activation Studies in PET and fMRI”, NeuroImage, vol. 16, pp. 331-348.
PRENTICE, D. (2007): “Treating diseases with adult stem cells”, Science, vol. 315(5810) p. 328.
PROCTOR, R. N. (1991), Value-free science? Purity and power in modern knowledge, Cambridge. Harvard University Press.
PRONIN, E. (2007): “Perception and misperception of bias in human judgement”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 11, n° 1, pp. 37-43.
PRPIC, K. (1998): “Science ethics: a study of eminent scientist’s professional values”, Scientometrics, vol. 43, n° 2, pp. 269-298.
PUTNAM, H. (1996): “La objetividad y la distinción ciencia ética”, en Nussbaum, M. y Sen, A., La calidad de vida, México, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
REICHHARDT, T. (2004): “ Studies of faith”, Nature, vol. 432, pp. 666-669.
SAFIRE, W. (2002): “Neuroethics: Mapping the Field. Conferences proceedings”, Nueva York, The Dana Foundation. Disponible en: http://www.dana.org.
SLAUGHTER, S. (1993): “Beyond Basic Science: Research University President’s Narratives of Science Policy”, Science, Technology and Human Values, vol. 18, n° 3, pp. 278-302.
SCHWARTZ, R. S. (1991): “The politics and Promise of Stem. Cell Research”, The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 355, n° 12, p. 1189.
VALLVERDÚ, J. (2006): “Bioethical art. Genome sense construction through artistic interactions”, Aesthetika, vol. 2, n° 2.
VALLVERDÚ, J. (2005): “¿Cómo finalizan las controversias? Un nuevo modelo de análisis: la controvertida historia de la sacarina”, Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad CTS, vol.2, n° 5, pp. 19-50.
VALLVERDÚ, J. (2007): “La mecanización del pensamiento: el sueño dorado de la filosofía”, Anthropos, vol. 214, pp. 16-31.
WALTERS, L. (2004): “Tradiciones religiosas e investigación con células troncales humanas”, en Casabona, C. (ed.), Investigación con células troncales, Barcelona, Fundación Medicina y Humanidades Médicas.
ZOLOTH, L. (2001): “The duty to Heal an Unfinished World: Jewish Tradition and Genetic Research”, Dialog: A journal of Theology, vol. 40, n° 4, pp. 299-300.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
