↓ Skip to main content

A meta-science for a global bioethics and biomedicine

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A meta-science for a global bioethics and biomedicine
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13010-017-0051-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

David S. Basser

Abstract

As suggested by Shook and Giordano, understanding and therefore addressing the urgent international governance issues around globalizing bio-medical/technology research and applications is limited by the perception of the underlying science. A philosophical methodology is used, based on novel and classical philosophical reflection upon existent literature, clinical wisdoms and narrative theory to discover a meta-science and telos of humankind for the development of a relevant and defendable global biomedical bioethics. In this article, through pondering an integrative systems approach, I propose a biomedical model that may provide Western biomedicine with leadership and interesting insight into the unity beyond the artificial boundaries of its traditional divisions and the limit between physiological and pathological situations (health and disease). A unified biomedicine, as scientific foundation, might then provide the basis for dissolution of similar reflected boundaries within bioethics. A principled and communitarian cosmopolitan bioethics may then be synonymous with a recently proposed principled and communitarian cosmopolitan neuroethics based on a novel objective meta-ethics. In an attempt to help facilitate equal and inclusive participation in inter-, multi-, and transdisciplinary intercultural discourse regarding the aforementioned international governance issues, I offer: (1) a meta-science derived through considering the general behaviour of activity, plasticity and balance in biology and; (2) a novel thought framework to encourage and enhance the ability for self-evaluation, self-criticism, and self-revision aimed at broadening perspective, as well as acknowledging and responding to the strengths and limitations of extant knowledge. Through classical philosophical reflection, I evolve a theory of medicine to discover a telos of humankind which in turn provides an 'internal' moral grounding for a proposed global biomedical bioethics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Lecturer 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 17 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 19 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,084,634
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#172
of 219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,388
of 331,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,365 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.