Gripsrud Birgitta Haga, Solbrække Kari Nyheim
Department of Caring and Ethics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Postboks 8600, Forus, 4036, Stavanger, Norway.
Professional Relationships in Welfare Professions Research Group, Department of Caring and Ethics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Med Health Care Philos. 2019 Dec;22(4):631-637. doi: 10.1007/s11019-019-09901-x.
This is a response to a short communication on our research presented in Solbrække et al. (Med Health Care Philos 20(1):89-103, 2017), which raises a series of serious allegations. Our article explored the rise of 'the breast cancer gene' as a field of medical, cultural and personal knowledge. We used the concept biological citizenship to elucidate representations of, and experiences with, hereditary breast cancer in a Norwegian context, addressing a research deficit. In our response to Møller and Hovig's (Med Health Care Philos 21(2):239-242, 2018a) opinionated piece, we start by questioning on which scientific grounds they base their knowledge claims and situate their criticism in a pre-determined positivist script, which exposes their incompetency when it comes to establishing a useful critique of our research. We tie this to an attitude of scientific supremacy, which reduces the complexity and specificity of different knowledges into a clichéd divide between 'hard evidence' and 'fiction'-presented in a predictable narrative which seeks to establish research protagonists and antagonists. We elaborate on the rationale of our qualitative approach to analyzing and interpreting situated and mediated aspects of BRCA 1/2. We counter claims that our research does harm to patients. We refer to a medical scandal emerging from Norway where 21 women were wrongfully diagnosed and surgically treated for a mis-interpreted cancer gene mutation. In conclusion, we stand by the integrity of our research as reported in the original paper. Scientific supremacy and pre-scripted criticism impose considerable obstacles for the possibility of establishing interdisciplinary dialogue across knowledge paradigms in health care and medicine. We therefore urge readers to reflect on how we can establish and sustain ethically careful and truthful dialogue-without doing violence to epistemological differences-to protect and advance the interdisciplinarity that constitutes the journal's scope.
这是对索尔布雷克等人（《医学与医疗保健哲学》20(1):89 - 103, 2017年）发表的关于我们研究的一篇短讯的回应，该短讯提出了一系列严重指控。我们的文章探讨了“乳腺癌基因”作为医学、文化和个人知识领域的兴起。我们运用生物公民身份的概念，在挪威背景下阐明遗传性乳腺癌的表现形式和相关经历，以填补一项研究空白。在回应莫勒和霍维格（《医学与医疗保健哲学》21(2):239 - 242, 2018a年）的观点性文章时，我们首先质疑他们提出知识主张所依据的科学基础，并将他们的批评置于预先设定的实证主义框架中，这暴露出他们在对我们的研究进行有效批评方面的无能。我们将此与科学至上主义的态度联系起来，这种态度将不同知识的复杂性和特殊性简化为“确凿证据”与“虚构”之间陈腐的划分，以一种可预测的叙事呈现，旨在确立研究的主角和反派。我们详细阐述了我们采用定性方法分析和解释BRCA 1/2的情境化和中介化方面的理由。我们反驳了关于我们的研究对患者造成伤害的说法。我们提及了挪威出现的一起医疗丑闻，21名女性因被错误解读的癌症基因突变而被错误诊断并接受了手术治疗。总之，我们坚持我们在原论文中所报告研究的完整性。科学至上主义和预设的批评给跨医疗保健和医学知识范式建立跨学科对话的可能性带来了巨大障碍。因此，我们敦促读者思考如何在不破坏认识论差异的情况下，建立并维持符合伦理且真实的对话，以保护和推进构成该期刊范畴的跨学科性。
