Commentary 2. ‘Telling the truth about genomics’: Legitimating a third voice: The role of philosophy in societal debates
-
Robert Frodeman
Robert Frodeman is Chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies at the University of North Texas. He is the Director of the New Directions Initiative, editor of
Earth Matters: The Earth Sciences, Philosophy, and the Claims of Community (Prentice Hall, 2000), co-editor ofRethinking Nature (Indiana, 2004), author ofGeo-Logic (SUNY, 2003), and former Director of the Global Climate Change and Society Program.
Abstract
Knowledge production is never simply about increasing the reservoir of information. It is also and equally about answering what Kant called the quid jure: By what right? Who is allowed to speak authoritatively on a subject? There are any number of people who have made a self-study of law, history, or medicine, or who for one reason or another quit their studies just before being awarded their final certification. These individuals may be quite able to competently address issues within a particular domain of knowledge. But only those who have passed the bar, been awarded the Ph.D., or have passed their medical boards have standing, are considered proper experts who are authorized to pronounce on a subject. These experts form closed groups that perpetuate their power by establishing chokeholds over access to and the dissemination of information in their fields—via peer review, journals, and professional associations.
About the author
Robert Frodeman is Chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies at the University of North Texas. He is the Director of the New Directions Initiative, editor of Earth Matters: The Earth Sciences, Philosophy, and the Claims of Community (Prentice Hall, 2000), co-editor of Rethinking Nature (Indiana, 2004), author of Geo-Logic (SUNY, 2003), and former Director of the Global Climate Change and Society Program.
© Walter de Gruyter
Articles in the same Issue
- Editorial
- Lifestyle counseling in type 2 diabetes prevention: A case study of a nurse's communication activity to produce change talk
- Representations of people with HIV and hepatitis C in editorials of medical journals: Discourses and interdiscursive relations
- When psychotherapists disclose personal information about themselves to clients
- The deep play of medicine: Discursive and collaborative processing of evidence in medical problem solving
- Media(ted) fabrications: How the science–media symbiosis helped ‘sell’ cord banking
- An enquiry into scientific and media discourse in the MMR controversy: Authority and factuality
- What healthcare students do with what they don't know: The socializing power of ‘uncertainty’ in the case presentation
- Commentary 1. ‘Telling the truth about genomics’: Hype and hope
- Commentary 2. ‘Telling the truth about genomics’: Legitimating a third voice: The role of philosophy in societal debates
- Commentary 3. ‘Telling the truth about genomics’: Toward a societal agenda for genomics research
- Response to commentators
Articles in the same Issue
- Editorial
- Lifestyle counseling in type 2 diabetes prevention: A case study of a nurse's communication activity to produce change talk
- Representations of people with HIV and hepatitis C in editorials of medical journals: Discourses and interdiscursive relations
- When psychotherapists disclose personal information about themselves to clients
- The deep play of medicine: Discursive and collaborative processing of evidence in medical problem solving
- Media(ted) fabrications: How the science–media symbiosis helped ‘sell’ cord banking
- An enquiry into scientific and media discourse in the MMR controversy: Authority and factuality
- What healthcare students do with what they don't know: The socializing power of ‘uncertainty’ in the case presentation
- Commentary 1. ‘Telling the truth about genomics’: Hype and hope
- Commentary 2. ‘Telling the truth about genomics’: Legitimating a third voice: The role of philosophy in societal debates
- Commentary 3. ‘Telling the truth about genomics’: Toward a societal agenda for genomics research
- Response to commentators
