Hastings Cent Rep. 2016 Sep;46(5):46-7. doi: 10.1002/hast.620.
In "A Conceptual Model for the Translation of Bioethics Research and Scholarship," Debra Mathews et al. aim to "begin an important discussion" about how to measure success in bioethics, and in doing so they set out a typology of bioethics research and scholarship with the arguably correct assumption that we cannot evaluate success in bioethics without first understanding what its goals are. I think the authors are correct in their claim that, in the current academic climate, having work in bioethics deemed a success is likely to hinge, in some way, on its being translated into practice and having impact. I want, however, to add a critical voice in the form of three considerations that I feel ought to be attended to before the work progresses further, the first being that the typology Mathews et al. propose is highly problematic. Although there is a burgeoning literature on "empirical bioethics" methodologies that blend empirical and conceptual work, the typology appears to ignore this.
在《生物伦理学研究与学术翻译的概念模型》一文中，Debra Mathews 等人旨在“开启一场重要的讨论”，即如何衡量生物伦理学的成功，他们为此提出了一种生物伦理学研究和学术的分类法，其假设可以说是正确的，即如果我们不首先了解生物伦理学的目标，就无法评估其成功。我认为作者的观点是正确的，即在当前的学术氛围中，要使生物伦理学领域的工作被视为成功，其在某种程度上很可能取决于将其转化为实践并产生影响。然而，我想以批判性的声音补充三点意见，我认为在进一步推进这项工作之前，应该关注这三点意见，第一点是 Mathews 等人提出的分类法存在很大问题。尽管有大量关于融合实证和概念工作的“经验生物伦理学”方法论的文献，但该分类法似乎忽略了这一点。
