Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
8.1
Chapter 8.1
Bioethics: a creative approach
Daniel Vallero
The Brain
d
is wider than the Sky
d
For
d
put them side by side
d
The one the other will contain
With ease
d
and You
d
beside
d
The Brain is deeper than the sea
d
For
d
hold them
d
Blue to Blue
d
The one the other will absorb
d
As Sponges
d
Buckets
d
do
d
The Brain is just the weight of God
d
For
d
Heft them
d
Pound for Pound
d
And they will differ
d
if they do
d
As Syllable from Sound
d
Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
1
Bioethics Question: When is an action morally
permissible and what kinds of behavior are
morally obligatory?
Let us begin on a balmy Saturday morning in the
North Carolina Piedmont, where a hundred or so new
graduate students were gathered in the auditorium of
Duke University's Chemistry Building. It was orientation
week in late August, when Duke requires that every
Ph.D.-seeking graduate student participate in a full day
of ethics training.
The Responsible Conduct of Research training pro-
gram developed by the Graduate School had had some
inauspicious beginnings. Some years earlier, Duke, like
other prominent research universities, risked losing
funding from the National Institutes of Health because
their research programs could not demonstrate that their
researchers were receiving adequate training in ethics.
So, as is often the case, Duke did not simply respond to
the criticism and threat by instituting a
pro forma
pro-
gram to keep the auditors happy, but decided to use this
as a ''teachable moment'' and galvanizing event. Among
the creative approaches to be adopted was to engage the
students as soon as they arrive in Durham. Part of this
commitment was to invite provocative speakers to evoke
responses and to stir the imagination of the students. It
was hoped that this first gathering would begin each
student's self-directive, proactive, lifelong ethos of re-
sponsible research. On that Saturday, the students were
asked to participate in two thought experiments.
In this vein, rather than to try the familiar ethical an-
alytical approach of tediously (and often boringly) de-
lineating, point by point, each possible bioethical aspect
of engineering, we apply a tool used by philosophers to
approach bioethics intuitively, using our imagination.
Engineers do not have to be reminded of the importance
of imagination. As Dickinson poetically and eloquently
elucidates, the mind is almost limitless in its ability to
reason. Given enough reliable information, humans are
capable of amazing feats. We can see beyond the con-
straints of ''what is'' to ''what can be.'' Imagination is
arguably the greatest asset of the engineer. Engineers
design because what they are able to see does not yet
exist. That is the purpose of design. Likewise, imagina-
tion is a useful device to help us to understand the nature
of bioethical challenges to practicing and future engi-
neers, as well as an important means of designing ways to
avert bioethical problems before they arise. So, what is it
we are up against in the decades ahead?
Here we consider bioethics questions relevant to the
practice of engineering. Few, if any, of these will be an-
swered to the complete satisfaction of every engineer.
However, the very process of inquiry may help to give
context and structure to some otherwise amorphous
issues. So, let us begin with an essential query:
