|
Showing 1 - 4 of
4 matches in All Departments
Not long ago, a colleague chided me for using the term "the
biological revolution. " Like many others, I have employed it as an
umbrella term to refer to the seemingly vast, rapidly-moving, and
fre quently bewildering developments of contemporary biomedicine:
psy chosurgery, genetic counseling and engineering, artificial
heart-lung machines, organ transplants-and on and on. The real
"biological revo lution," he pointed out, began back in the
nineteenth century in Europe. For it was then that death rates and
infant mortality began to decline, the germ theory of disease was
firmly established, Darwin took his famous trip on the Beagle, and
Gregor Mendel stumbled on to some fundamental principles of
heredity. My friend, I think, was both right and wrong. The
biological revolution did have its roots in the nineteenth century;
that is when it first began to unfold. Yet, like many intellectual
and scientific upheav als, its force was not felt for decades.
Indeed, it seems fair to say that it was not until after the Second
World War that the full force of the earlier discoveries in biology
and medicine began to have a major impact, an impact that was all
the more heightened by the rapid bi omedical developments after the
war."
Not long ago, a colleague chided me for using the term "the
biological revolution. " Like many others, I have employed it as an
umbrella term to refer to the seemingly vast, rapidly-moving, and
fre quently bewildering developments of contemporary biomedicine:
psy chosurgery, genetic counseling and engineering, artificial
heart-lung machines, organ transplants-and on and on. The real
"biological revo lution," he pointed out, began back in the
nineteenth century in Europe. For it was then that death rates and
infant mortality began to decline, the germ theory of disease was
firmly established, Darwin took his famous trip on the Beagle, and
Gregor Mendel stumbled on to some fundamental principles of
heredity. My friend, I think, was both right and wrong. The
biological revolution did have its roots in the nineteenth century;
that is when it first began to unfold. Yet, like many intellectual
and scientific upheav als, its force was not felt for decades.
Indeed, it seems fair to say that it was not until after the Second
World War that the full force of the earlier discoveries in biology
and medicine began to have a major impact, an impact that was all
the more heightened by the rapid bi omedical developments after the
war."
There is the world of ideas and the world of practice; the French
are often for sup pressing the one and the English the other; but
neither is to be suppressed. -Matthew Arnold The Function of
Criticism at the Present Time From its inception, bioethics has
confronted the need to reconcile theory and practice. At first the
confrontation was purely intellectual, as writers on ethical theory
(within phi losophy, theology, or other humanistic disciplines)
turned their attention to topics from the world of medical
practice. Recently the confrontation has grown more intense. The ap
pointment of clinical ethicists in hospitals and other health care
settings is an accelerating trend in North America. Concomitantly,
those institutions involved in training peo ple in clinical ethics
have added organized exposure to the world of practice, in the form
of placement requirements, to the normal academic course load. In
common with other dis ciplines, bioethics has begun to see clinical
training as a con dition of didactic theory and apprenticeship."
There is the world of ideas and the world of practice; the French
are often for sup pressing the one and the English the other; but
neither is to be suppressed. -Matthew Arnold The Function of
Criticism at the Present Time From its inception, bioethics has
confronted the need to reconcile theory and practice. At first the
confrontation was purely intellectual, as writers on ethical theory
(within phi losophy, theology, or other humanistic disciplines)
turned their attention to topics from the world of medical
practice. Recently the confrontation has grown more intense. The ap
pointment of clinical ethicists in hospitals and other health care
settings is an accelerating trend in North America. Concomitantly,
those institutions involved in training peo ple in clinical ethics
have added organized exposure to the world of practice, in the form
of placement requirements, to the normal academic course load. In
common with other dis ciplines, bioethics has begun to see clinical
training as a con dition of didactic theory and apprenticeship."
|
|