This article analyses, from a bioethics journal editor's perspective, the threats to academic freedom and freedom of expression that academic bioethicists and academic bioethics journals are subjected to by political activists applying pressure from outside of the academy. I defend bioethicists’ academic freedom to reach and defend conclusions many find offensive and ‘wrong’. However, I also support the view that academics arguing controversial matters such as, for instance, the moral legitimacy of infanticide should take clear responsibility for the views they defend and should not try to hide behind analytical philosophers’ rationales such as wanting to test an argument for the sake of testing an argument. This article proposes that bioethics journals establish higher-quality requirements and more stringent mechanisms of peer review than usual for iconoclastic articles.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The Italian reaction to the Giubilini and Minerva paper
- Authorship policies of bioethics journals
- Life in the cloud and freedom of speech
- Should policy ethics come in two colours: green or white?
- Yes, the baby should live: a pro-choice response to Giubilini and Minerva
- Highlights in bioethics through 40 years: a quantitative analysis of top-cited journal articles
- Institute of Medical Ethics Guidelines for confirmation of appointment, promotion and recognition of UK bioethics and medical ethics researchers
- Empirical research in bioethical journals. A quantitative analysis
- Infanticide, moral status and moral reasons: the importance of context
- The moral status of babies