Abstract
The following pages offer some reflections on the chapters in this book that are primarily considering the human character of science from the perspective of biological and biomedical sciences. More specifically, Benjamin Hurlbut, Alfredo Marcos, and Christopher Tollefsen’s contributions have focused on this different aspect of the human decline in science. The Authors propose three different approaches to the human character of science and what it means. Although the proposed accounts of the potential threats to the humanness of science follow different trajectories, similar or complementary arguments run across their narratives: revealing that critical voices toward a potential loss of humanity through technology come from multiple and pluralistic perspectives – often under-represented in the public debate. In these pages I will focus on some shared concerns and conclusions. First, the Authors converge in arguing that the technologies of life represent a major place where the humanity of science has been and is under threat. Second, they similarly highlight some assumptions that inform, connect, and circulate in, both life sciences and artificial sciences. Third, directly or indirectly they all argue that the question about “what kind of humanity” we should nurture and reinvigorate should be placed at the core of the human cognitive and political enterprise.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The title refers to the landmark judicial case of John Moore, whose spleen gave rise to a cell-line that was patented as an intellectual invention owned by the researcher who used Moore’s biological materials (see Moore v. Regents of University of California, 51 Cal. 3d (1990)).
References
Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Boyle, James. 1996. Shamans, Software and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
British Academy and the Royal Society. 2017. Data Management and Use: Governance in the 21st Century a Joint Report by the British Academy and the Royal Society. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/data-governance/data-management-governance.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2018.
Drahos, Peter, ed. 2017. Regulatory Theory. Foundations and Applications. Acton: ANU Press.
EC (European Commission). 2010. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Smart Regulation in the European Union. Brussels, COM (2010) 543 final.
EGE (European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies). 2018. Statement on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and ‘Autonomous’ Systems. Brussels: European Commission.
Ezrahi, Yaron. 1990. The Descent of Icarus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Future of Life Institute. 2017. Asilomar AI Principles, Asilomar, January 2–5. https://futureoflife.org/ai-principles. Accessed 18 July 2018.
Hilgartner, Stephen, Clark Miller, and Rob Hagendijk, eds. 2015. Science and Democracy. Making Knowledge and Making Power in the Biosciences and Beyond. London/New York: Routledge.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva 41: 223–244.
———. 2005. Designs on Nature. Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———, ed. 2011. Reframing Rights. Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
———. 2016. The Ethics of Invention. Technology and the Human Future. New York/London: W.W. Norton & Company.
Liberatore, Angela, and Silvio Funtowicz. 2003. ‘Democratising’ Expertise, ‘Expertising’ Democracy: What Does This Mean, and Why Bother? Science and Public Policy 30 (3): 146–150.
Sabelli, Chiara, and Mariachiara Tallacchini. 2018. From Privacy to Algorithms’ Fairness. In Privacy and Identity Management. The Smart Revolution, ed. Marit Hansen, Eleni Kosta, Igor Nai-Fovino, and Simone Fischer-Hübner, 86–110. Cham: Springer.
Tallacchini, Mariachiara. 2015. From Biobanks to Genetic Digital Networks: Why official pre-identified values may not work. In Science, Philosophy and Sustainability. The End of the Cartesian Dream, ed. Ângela Guimaraes Pereira and Silvio Funtowicz, 98–111. London/New York: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tallacchini, M. (2020). Cultivating Humanity in Bio- and Artificial Sciences. In: Bertolaso, M., Sterpetti, F. (eds) A Critical Reflection on Automated Science. Human Perspectives in Health Sciences and Technology, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25001-0_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25001-0_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25000-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25001-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)