Stahnisch Frank W
Institute for History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz, Am Pulverturm 13, D-55131 Mainz, Germany.
Theor Med Bioeth. 2005;26(5):397-425. doi: 10.1007/s11017-005-1425-5.
The aim of this paper is to discuss a key question in the history and philosophy of medicine, namely how scholars should treat the practices and experimental hypotheses of modern life science laboratories. The paper seeks to introduce some prominent historiographical methods and theoretical approaches associated with biomedical research. Although medical scientists need no convincing that experimentation has a significant function in their laboratory work, historians, philosophers, and sociologists long neglected its importance when examining changes in medical theories or progress in scientific knowledge. The reason appears to have been the academic influence of the then dominant tradition in the history of ideas, but was also due to a misconception of what could usefully be termed the view on "historical ontology." During the last two decades, there have been many books and research articles that have turned towards the subject, so that the study of experimental practice has become a major trend in the contemporary history and philosophy of medicine. A closer look at the issue of laboratory research shows that concepts in medicine and the life sciences cannot be understood as historically constant, free-standing ideas, but have to be regarded as dependent on local research settings. They often carry particular "social memories" with them and thus acquire important ethical implications.
本文旨在探讨医学史和医学哲学中的一个关键问题,即学者应如何对待现代生命科学实验室的实践和实验假设。本文试图介绍一些与生物医学研究相关的著名史学方法和理论方法。尽管医学科学家无需确信实验在他们的实验室工作中具有重要作用,但历史学家、哲学家和社会学家在研究医学理论的变化或科学知识的进步时,长期忽视了实验的重要性。原因似乎在于当时思想史上占主导地位的传统的学术影响,但也归因于对所谓“历史本体论”观点的误解。在过去二十年里,有许多书籍和研究文章转向了这个主题,以至于实验实践的研究已成为当代医学史和医学哲学的一个主要趋势。仔细审视实验室研究问题会发现,医学和生命科学中的概念不能被理解为历史上恒定不变、独立存在的观念,而必须被视为依赖于当地的研究环境。它们常常带有特定的“社会记忆”,从而具有重要的伦理意义。