Pavel Tishchenko

The problem of the logic of understanding history is discussed. We propose a model of understanding history as a conversation, which the person thinking about history has with interlocutors (sources) of previous epochs. The epoch is interpreted as a special way of problematizing human's understanding of him (her) self and the world around. At the same time, three gifts — attention, recognition and name — underlie the connection of the historian in conversation with interlocutors (sources) from other eras. They are not given in advance but are results of a struggle for the recognition. In choosing his (her) interlocutor (source), the historian chooses him (her) self. By giving this interlocutor (the source) the opportunity to be heard, the historian, at the same time, receives a gift from the source — the opportunity to express what would otherwise remain unspoken in the historian's own mind. The logic of conversation, designated as transduction, is not the connection through the identification of the beginning and the end of the discourse, which is appropriate and necessary within the speech of each of the conversationalists, but the connection of the beginnings of these discordant discourses among themselves.

The article discusses the challenges, benefits, and risks that, from a bioethical perspective, arise because of the the development of eHealth projects. The conceptual framework of the research is based on H. Jonas’ principles of the ethics of responsibility and B.G. Yudin’s anthropological ideas on human beings as agents who constantly change their own boundaries in the “zone of phase transitions.” The article focuses on the events taking place in the zone of phase transitions between humans and machines in eHealth. It is shown that for innovative practices related to digitalization and datafication in medicine, it is needed to rethink central bioethical concepts of personal autonomy and informed consent. In particular, the concept of broad or open informed consent is discussed, which allows the idea of moral responsibility in the field of biomedical technologies to be extended to events of uncertain future. The authors draw attention to the problems associated with the emergence of new autonomous subjects/agents in relationship between doctors and patients. The humanization of machines occurring in eHealth is accompanied by a counter trend – the formation of conceptions and practices of the quantified self. There emerges the practices of self-care and bio-power caused by the datafication and digitization of personality. The authors conclude that bioethics should proactively develop norms for the evolving interaction between doctor and patients.

It is argued that epistemic injustice as a problem of expertise is related not only to its scientization, closure, and the inability of institutionalized experts to hear the voice of representatives of the marginal communities, as stated in the article by S.Y. Shevchenko, but also to systemic communicative dysfunction in the relations of scientists, experts, representatives of marginal communities and state authorities. It is supposed that dashing about of dysfunctionality of interactions is the mistrust of social actors to each other which generates mutual forms of both hermeneutical, and testimonial injustice in M. Fricker sense. Unilateral view of marginalized communities is criticized. It should be taken into account that due to the rapid specialization in scientific production of knowledge, the boundary between the expert and the profane is radically shifted from the space of external social relations to the internal mental space of each of the experts.

The author discusses B.G. Yudin's image technoscience as having two contours, the external one dealing with science, business and society, and the internal one represented by laboratories. Together these two contours present a multidimensional net of relations between science and technology in conducting experiments, development of instruments (e.g. visualization tools), etc. The author argues that, in such a system, coordinated activity of the internal and the external contours is provided by a synergy of regulatory principles of truth, good and usefulness. He discusses a case of synthetic biology which, as he argues, demonstrates that the internal and external contours of technoscience undergo a process of technologization. Technologization is understood as a transition from research techniques to systematic use of technologies. Biotechnologies are claimed to have a double socio-biological helix network structure. Each network is formed as a kind of ad hoc "factory" and is aimed at solving specific research problems.