Article contents
The Communitarian Turn: Myth or Reality?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 August 2011
Extract
This quotation from the London Review of Books is an example of a turn—a different way of looking at things that involves a redefinition of the kind of thing higher education is and how it should be provided. It is a turn away from a public good perspective—the opposite, it might be said, of the kind of turn addressed in this article.
- Type
- Special Section: From Informed Consent to No Consent?
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011
References
1. Collini, S.Browne’s gamble. London Review of Books 2010;32(21):23–5.Google Scholar
2. MacIntyre, A.After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press; 1981.Google Scholar
3. World Health Organization. Genetic Databases: Assessing the Benefits and the Impact on Human and Patient Rights. Geneva: WHO; 2003, p. 7.Google Scholar
4. See note 3, World Health Organization 2003.
5. Chadwick, R, Berg, K.Solidarity and equity: New ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nature Reviews Genetics 2001;2(4):318–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Knoppers, BM, Chadwick, R.Human genetic research: Emerging trends in ethics. Nature Reviews Genetics 2005;6:75–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Knoppers, BM, Chadwick, R.The Human Genome Project: Under an international ethical microscope. Science 1994;265:2035–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Human Genome Organisation (HUGO). Statement on Pharmacogenomics (PGx): Solidarity, Equity and Governance. Genomics, Society and Policy 2007;3:45.Google Scholar
9. See note 8, HUGO 2007:45.
10. See note 8, HUGO 2007:46.
11. Clarke, CA. Problems raised by developments in genetics. In: Ebling, FJ, ed. Biology and Ethics. London: Academic Press; 1969, at 96.Google Scholar
12. Vyvyan, J.The Dark Face of Science. London: Michael Joseph; 1971, at 21.Google Scholar
13. Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) Ethics Committee. Statement on Human Genomic Databases. London: HUGO; 2000.Google Scholar
14. See note 5, Chadwick, Berg 2001.
15. Lunshof, J, Chadwick, R, Vorhaus, DB, Church, GM. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nature Reviews Genetics 2008;9:406–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. As in the 2001 article by myself and Kare Berg, for example.
17. Chadwick, R.What is “applied” in applied ethics. Journal of Applied Ethics 2009;1:1–7.Google Scholar
18. Donchin, A, Diniz, D.Guest editors’ note. Bioethics 2001;15(3):iii–v.Google Scholar
19. Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) Ethics Committee. Statement on Benefit-Sharing. London: HUGO; 2000, at 2.Google Scholar
20. See note 6, Knoppers, Chadwick 2005.
21. Williams, B. The idea of equality. In: Laslett, P, Runciman, WG, eds. Philosophy, Politics and Society. 2nd series. Oxford: Blackwell; 1962.Google Scholar
22. See note 15, Lunshof et al. 2008.
23. Nissenbaum, H.Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review 2004;79(1):119–58.Google Scholar
- 15
- Cited by