Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Bioethic$ Inc.

Nature Biotechnology volume 22, pages 947–948 (2004)Cite this article

By now, everyone knows the claims used to argue that bioethicists should accept consulting opportunities and research funding from pharmaceutical and biotech corporations. Proponents of corporate-sponsored bioethics commonly develop variations on three themes.

First, we live in a capitalist economy and bioethicists have the right to seek remuneration for their services. Bioethicists should not be expected to provide pro bono work for corporations; instead, bioethicists ought to be able to offer their professional services as consultants to industry. Bioethicists can promote ethical corporate practices and protect corporate interests by identifying moral concerns related to such topics as embryonic stem cell research and genetically modified crops. For many biotech and pharmaceutical corporations, the use of bioethicists fits within a larger program of risk analysis and risk management1.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Arakelian, C. Drug Discovery Today 8, 386–388 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Magnus, D. Drug Discovery Today 7, 385–387 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Elliott, C. Hastings Center Report 31, 9–12 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Brody, B. et al. Hastings Center Report 32, 14–20 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Elliott, C. London Review of Books 24, 36–37 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Elliott, C. The American Prospect 12, 17 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Youngner, S. & Arnold, R. Hastings Center Report 32, 21–22 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Studies of Medicine, Biomedical Ethics Unit, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 3647 Peel Street, Montreal, H3A 1X1, Quebec, Canada

    Leigh Turner

  2. Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science, Princeton, 08540, NJ, USA

    Leigh Turner

Authors
  1. Leigh Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turner, L. Bioethic$ Inc.. Nat Biotechnol 22, 947–948 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0804-947

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0804-947

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing