Duncan Wilson

The Making of British Bioethics provides the first in-depth study of how philosophers, lawyers and other 'outsiders' came to play a major role in discussing and helping to regulate issues that used to be left to doctors and scientists. It details how British bioethics emerged thanks to a dynamic interplay between sociopolitical concerns and the aims of specific professional groups and individuals who helped create the demand for outside involvement and transformed themselves into influential 'ethics experts'. Highlighting this interplay helps us appreciate how issues such as embryo research and assisted dying became high-profile 'bioethical' concerns in the late twentieth century, and why different groups now play a critical role in developing regulatory standards and leading public debates. The book draws on a wide range of original sources and will be of interest to historians of medicine and science, general historians and bioethicists.

This article shows how funding research on Alzheimer's disease became a priority for the British Medical Research Council in the late 1970s and 1980s, thanks to work that isolated new pathological and biochemical markers, and showed that the disease affected a significant proportion of the elderly population. In contrast to histories that focus on the emergence of new and competing theories of disease causation in this period, I argue that concerns over the use of different assessment methods ensured the MRC's immediate priority was standardising the ways in which researchers identified and recorded symptoms of Alzheimer's disease in potential research subjects. I detail how the rationale behind the development of standard assessment guidelines was less about arriving at a firm diagnosis and more about facilitating research by generating data that could be easily compared across the disciplines and sites that constitute modern biomedicine. Drawing on criticism of specific tests in the MRC's guidelines, which some psychiatrists argued were "middle class biased", I also show that debates over standardisation did not simply reflect concerns specific to the fields or areas of research that the MRC sought to govern. Questions about the validity of standard assessment guidelines for Alzheimer's disease embodied broader concerns about education and social class, which ensured that distinguishing normal from pathological in old age remained a contested and historically contingent process.

During the late 20thcentury numerical rating scales became central to the diagnosis of dementia and helped transform attitudes about its causes and prevalence. Concentrating largely on the development and use of the Blessed Dementia Scale, I argue that rating scales served professional ends during the 1960s and 1970s. They helped old age psychiatrists establish jurisdiction over conditions such as dementia and present their field as a vital component of the welfare state, where they argued that ‘reliable modes of diagnosis’ were vital to the allocation of resources. I show how these arguments appealed to politicians, funding bodies and patient groups, who agreed that dementia was a distinct disease and claimed research on its causes and prevention should be designated ‘top priority’. But I also show that worries about the replacement of clinical acumen with technical and depersonalized methods, which could conceivably be applied by anyone, led psychiatrists to stress that rating scales had their limits and could be used only by trained experts.

In recent decades the debate over the metaethical conclusion from the theory of evolution has intensified. Michael Ruse’s epistemological argument has been taken up by Richard Joyce, Guy Kahane and Sharon Street and formalised into the Evolutionary Debunking Argument: Causal Premise: Our evolutionary history explains why we have the moral beliefs we have. Epistemic premise: Evolution is not a truth-tracking process with respect to moral truth. Metaphysical Assumption: Objectivism gives the correct account of moral concepts and properties. Therefore, Moral Scepticism: None of our moral beliefs are justified. Moral realists have attempted to attack this argument through attacking any one of these premises. In this thesis I will argue that with slight modifications we can justify each of the premises of the EDA and construct a sound argument that will establish moral scepticism. I will justify the causal premise through an inference to the best explanation of the phenomena of moral belief relying on our best currently available empirical data. I will justify the epistemic premise by ruling out any potential relation between evolutionary forces and moral truth. The metaphysical assumption will be justified by turning it into an epistemological assumption and using a reconstruction of G. E. Moore’s Open Question Argument. This will allow us to recreate the EDA into a sound argument: Revised Causal Premise: Human moral judgements are unavoidably influenced by human evolutionary history. Epistemic Premise: Evolution is not a truth-tracking process with respect to moral truth. Epistemological Assumption: Objectivism gives the only justifiable account of moral concepts and properties. Therefore, Moral Scepticism: None of our moral beliefs are justified. I will conclude by pointing out possible avenues for the moral realist to object to the revised EDA I establish. However, I will also point out why each of these avenues is likely to fail and, for the moment, moral scepticism is the most plausible position.

Recent books, articles and plays about the ‘immortal’ HeLa cell line have prompted renewed interest in the history of tissue culture methods that were first employed in 1907 and became common experimental tools during the twentieth century. Many of these sources claim tissue cultures like HeLa had a “troubled past” because medical researchers did not seek informed consent before using tissues in research, contravening a long held desire for self-determination on the part of patients and the public. In this article, I argue these claims are unfair and misleading. No professional guidelines required informed consent for tissue culture during the early and mid twentieth century, and popular sources expressed no concern at the widespread use of human tissues in research. When calls for informed consent did emerge in the 1970s and 1980s, moreover, they reflected specific political changes and often emanated from medical researchers themselves. I conclude by arguing that more balanced histories of tissue culture can make a decisive contribution to public debates today: by refuting a false dichotomy between science and its publics, and showing how ethical concepts such as informed consent arise from a historically specific engagement between professional and social groups.

This article details the relationship between history and bioethics. I argue that historians' reluctance to engage with bioethics rests on a misreading of the field as solely reducible to applied ethics, and overlooks previous enthusiasm for historical perspectives. I claim that seeing bioethics as its practitioners see it – as an interdisciplinary meeting ground – should encourage historians to collaborate in greater numbers. I conclude by outlining how bioethics might benefit from new histories of the field, and how historians can lend a fresh perspective to bioethical debates

Historians agree that the second half of the twentieth century saw widespread changes in the structure of biological science in universities. This shift was, and continues to be, characterized by the de-differentiation of nineteenth and early twentieth century disciplines, with increasing emphasis on the methods and authority of molecular fields. Yet we currently lack appreciation of the dynamics that underpinned these changes, and of their tangible effects on the working practices of those involved. In this article we examine the wholesale reform of biological science at the University of Manchester, England, that occurred in two successive steps in 1986 and 1993. We examine how reform was enabled by economic and political factors, as staff seized upon national pressures; in so doing, we emphasize how this reform was shaped by a generational view of the biological sciences as a one field, unified by molecular techniques. We assess how the success of these reforms was tied to new management policies that rewarded research activity in molecular fields, and refigured teaching as a punishment for research inactivity. We close by showing how our analysis fits amongst, and can contribute to, ‘big picture’ debates in the history and sociology of knowledge