Valores em Controvérsias

A Pesquisa com Células-Tronco

Autores

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-928

Palavras-chave:

controvérsia, valores, epistêmico, não epistêmico, células-tronco

Resumo

As controvérsias científicas são momentos-chave na análise dos processos da dinâmica científica. Nelas, foram identificados claramente dois tipos de valores: os epistêmicos e os não epistêmicos. Entre estes últimos, podemos considerar, entre muitos outros, os de natureza moral e religiosa. À luz de estudos recentes sobre processos cognitivos por meio de fMRI, podemos incluir esses valores no grupo dos epistêmicos. Por meio do estudo de caso da controvérsia sobre as células-tronco, desenvolveremos essa ideia.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

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

Publicado

2007-08-01

Como Citar

Delgado, M., & Vallverdú, J. (2007). Valores em Controvérsias: A Pesquisa com Células-Tronco. Revista Iberoamericana De Ciencia, Tecnología Y Sociedad - CTS, 3(9), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-928

Edição

Seção

Artigos