Article info
PDFGlobal medical ethics
Synthetic biology and the ethics of knowledge
- Correspondence to Dr Thomas Douglas, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Suite 8, Littlegate House, 16/17 St Ebbe's Street, Oxford OX1 1PT, UK; thomas.douglas{at}philosophy.ox.ac.uk
Citation
Synthetic biology and the ethics of knowledge
Publication history
- Received June 9, 2010
- Accepted June 9, 2010
- First published October 8, 2010.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 April 2016).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
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.
Copyright information
© 2010, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Other content recommended for you
- Whose ethics of knowledge? Taking the next step in evaluating knowledge in synthetic biology: a response to Douglas and Savulescu
- The ethics of biosafety considerations in gain-of-function research resulting in the creation of potential pandemic pathogens
- Science for evil: the scientist's dilemma
- A qualified endorsement of embryonic stem cell research, based on two widely shared beliefs about the brain-diseased patients such research might benefit
- Moral uncertainty and the farming of human-pig chimeras
- Great expectations—ethics, avian flu and the value of progress
- Genetic enhancement, post-persons and moral status: a reply to Buchanan
- Going high and low: on pluralism and neutrality in human embryology policy-making
- The moral value of induced pluripotent stem cells: a Japanese bioethics perspective on human embryo research
- Clinicians’ criteria for fetal moral status: viability and relationality, not sentience