RESUMEN

The experimental approach has been at the center of my thoughts since my baccalaureate of "experimental sciences". Trained in neurosciences, I very quickly chose the field of ethology, thinking I would escape certain experimental approaches and offer myself research more respectful of animal life. Today, I have to note that this option did not necessarily lead to what I had imagined. I have been both the witness and the actor of practices that deserve attention. This path, punctuated by an evolution of the conceptions of our relations with living beings, leads me to question the ethics, sometimes contradictory, of action and knowledge.

Title: Quelle place pour l'expérimentation en éthologie ? Abstract: La démarche expérimentale est au centre de mes réflexions depuis mon baccalauréat « sciences ex ¼. Formé aux neurosciences, j'ai très vite choisi l'éthologie de terrain, pensant échapper à certaines démarches expérimentales et m'offrir des activités de recherche plus respectueuses de la vie animale. Aujourd'hui, je dois constater que cette option n'aboutit pas forcément à ce que j'avais imaginé. J'ai été à la fois le témoin et l'acteur de pratiques qui méritent attention. Ce parcours, jalonné par une évolution des conceptions de nos relations avec les être animés, me conduit à questionner les éthiques, parfois contradictoires, de l'action et de la connaissance.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Informed consent (IC) is a key patients' right. It gives patients the opportunity to access relevant information/knowledge and to support their decision-making role in partnership with clinicians. Despite this promising account of IC, the relationship between 'knowledge', as derived from IC, and the role of clinicians is often misunderstood. I offer two examples of this: (1) the prenatal testing and screening for disabilities; (2) the consent process in the abortion context. In the first example, IC is often over-medicalized, that is to say the disclosure of information appears to be strongly in the clinicians' hands. In this context, knowledge has often been a curse on prospective parents. Framing information in a doctor-centred and often negative way has hindered upon prospective parents' decision-making role and also portrayed wrong assumptions upon disabled people more widely. In the second context, information is more often than not dismissed and, in a de-medicalized scenario, medical contribution often underplayed. The latter leads to an understanding of the dialogue with clinicians as a mere hinderance to the timely access to an abortion. Ultimately, I claim that it is important that knowledge, as derived from IC, is neither altogether dismissed via a process of de-medicalization, nor used as a curse on patients via a process of over-medicalization. None of the two gives justice to IC. Only when a better balance between medical and patients' contribution is sought, knowledge can aspire to be a blessing (i.e. an opportunity for them), not a curse on patients in the IC context.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

I examine the positive and negative features of synthetic biology ('SynBio') from a utilitarian ethical perspective. The potential beneficial outcomes from SynBio in the context of medicine are substantial; however it is not presently possible to predict precise outcomes due to the nascent state of the field. Potential negative outcomes from SynBio also exist, including iatrogenesis and bioterrorism; however it is not yet possible to quantify these risks. I argue that the application of a 'precautionary' approach to SynBio is ethically fraught, as is the notion that SynBio-associated knowledge ought to be restricted. I conclude that utilitarians ought to support a broadly laissez-faire stance in respect of SynBio.

Asunto(s)