At the confluence of ethics, laws and society: global working theory merging bio-ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The pressing global challenges facing humanity highlight the urgency of reconciling medicine, society and ecology. By shedding light on the role of theories of translation and justification, the intention here is to show the potential usefulness of an in situ bioethics that reconciles practices in medicine and ecology. Science and policy should be reassembled in hybrid working theories developed, adopted and reframed by/for Society. Yet, a major challenge emerges from translating ethics, sciences, and economics claims, both within expert and lay milieus. This paper proposes foundational pillars for operationalizing the Potterian view of global bioethics. Van Rensselaer Potter challenged the perspective that compartmentalizes values, knowledge and laws, proposing ways to bridge them by linking appreciative, descriptive, and normative knowledge. The missing link, however, is a coherent governance process that coordinates the thinking, ordering, and enacting in the world. Based on an extensive revision of the Potterian legacy and action-research case studies, this article applies the Global theoretical view in the complex in situ practice of bioethics. Little known outside the world of academic bioethics, Potter’s primarily scientific curriculum helps translate and operationalize the socio-political reflections of notable contemporary philosophers of science and critical social theoreticians such as Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, John Rawls, Bruno Latour and Jürgen Habermas. In this era of mass communication, government education programs, and large-scale research funding, I propose a conceptual framework for operating a Community-based Global Bio-Ethics, echoing the 60th anniversary of Habermas’ call for The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".