Beltrán LEM, Osorno V

Language: Spanish
References: 26
Page: 19-33
PDF size: 220.85 Kb.

ABSTRACT

This article describes some of the difficulties when a research project pertaining to knowledge areas with languages and logics that are distant from clinical research is submitted to an ethics committee for its evaluation and approval. Two cases, with different knowledge object epistemologies to the ones usually deliberated in those instances are presented. The first case deals with an art installation that allowed the study of the link of affection between human beings and lab mice. The ethics committee’s punctual requests and the answers given by the artist are analyzed in order to get its approval. The second case describes the introduction of the invasive species plant Tamarix spp in the riparian ecosystem of the United States, becoming the nesting site of an endangered flycatcher bird Empidonax trailii extimus. This phenomenon prompted challenging ethics issues for the ecological restorationists in their search for the meaning of the natural. The authors conclude ethics committees should welcome Donna Haraway’s situated knowledges perspective and Bruno Latour’s actor-network theory suggesting that in the pursue of reaching a universality, science has tended to standardize diverse meanings in a reductionist way.

REFERENCES

1. Ballesteros, M. y Beltrán, E. M. (2018). ¿Investigarcreando? una guía para la investigación-creación enla academia. Bogotá: Universidad El Bosque.

2. Bezerra, S. (2011). Algunas propuestas sobre una nuevareflexión ética medio ambiental. Burgos: Universidadde Burgos.

3. Deleuze, G. y Guattari, F. (1994). Mil mesetas. Valencia:Pre-textos.

4. Delgado, T., Beltrán, E. M., Ballesteros, M. y Salcedo,J. P. (2015). La investigación-creación como escenariode convergencia entre modos de generación de conocimiento.Iconofacto, 11(17), 10-28. doi: 10.18566/iconofac.v11n17.a01

5. Hackler, C. y Hester, D. M. (2008). Introduction: Whatshould an HEC look and act like. In D. M. Hester (Ed.),Ethics by committee (pp. 1-19). Plymouth: Rowman yLittlefield Publishers.

6. Hannula, M., Suoranta, J. y Vaden, T. (2005). Artisticresearch. Theories, methods and practices. Helsinki yGothemburg: Academy of Fine Arts.

7. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The sciencequestion in feminism and the privilege of partialperspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575 - 599.

8. Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kinin the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press.

9. Jeffrey, P. (2003). Smoothing the waters: Observationson the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration.Social Studies of Science, 33(4), 539 - 562.doi: 10.1177/0306312703334003

10. Kaminiarz, V. (2008). May the mice bite me if it isnot true. Recuperado de http://www.aedc.ca/verena/may_the_mice_bite/images_may_the_mice_bite.htm

11. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, Massachusetts:Harvard University Press.

12. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social–An introductionto Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

13. Lincoln, Y. S. y Guba, E. G. (2005). Paradigmaticcontroversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences.En N. K. Denzin, y Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), TheSage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 191-215).Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

14. López Moratalla, N. (2011). La Bioética en los informesACRE. Cuadernos de Bioética, 22(2), 277-281.

15. Macneill, P. U. y Ferran, B. (2011). Art and bioethics:Shifts in understanding across genres. BioethicalInquiry, 8, 71-85.

16. Martínez Carazo, P. (2006). El método de estudio decaso. Estrategia metodológica de la investigacióncientífica. Pensamiento y Gestión, 20, 165-193.

17. Minteer, B. A. y Collins, J. P. (2008). From Environmentalto Ecological Ethics: Toward a PracticalEthics for Ecologists and Conservationists. Scienceand Engineering Ethics, 14, 483 - 501.

18. Mulkay, M. y Milic, V. (1980). The sociology of sciencein East and West. Sage Publications: London.

19. Rancière, J. (2000). Le partage du sensible. Paris: LaFabrique.

20. Sterba, J. (2000). A biocentrist strikes back. En EarthEthics: Introductory Readings on Animal Rights andEnvironmental Ethics. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

21. Sullivan, L. E. (2009). The Sage Glossary of the Social andBehavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

22. Vaage, N. (2016). What ethics for bioart? Nanoethics,10, 87-104.

23. Wickson, F., Carew, A. L. y Russell, A. W. (2006).Transdisciplinary research: Characteristics, quandariesand quality. Futures, 38(9), 1046-1059.

24. Wilches Flórez, Á. M. (2011). La propuesta Bioética deVan Rensselaer Potter, cuatro décadas después. Opción:Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, 66, 70-84.

25. Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods.London: Sage Publications.

26. Zurr, I. y Catts, O. (2014). The unnatural relationsbetween artistic research and ethics committees: Anartist’s perspective. En P. Macneill (Ed.), Ethics and thearts (pp. 201-210). Nueva York-Londres: Springer.