The strengths and limitations of empirical bioethics

The past two decades have been witness to an "empirical turn" in bioethics. Whereas once this field of study concerned itself purely with theoretical analysis of ethical issues emerging in the design and delivery of health care, increasingly bioethics has embraced a range of empirical research methods from the social sciences and humanities. The emergence of "empirical bioethics" has, however, been the subject of enormous debate, both in regard to its methods and its purpose. For the most part these criticisms fail to appreciate the assumptions that underpin empirical bioethics or misrepresent the claims that are made about its moral utility. This article provides a brief account of the assumptions, strengths and limitations of empirical bioethics.     

The bioethics and law paradox: an argument to maintain separateness with a hint of togetherness

This article analyses how bioethics and law interact and work together. The first half of the article provides definitions of both ethics and bioethics. The article then considers a number of different bioethical standpoints to demonstrate the variance of views in relation to bioethics. In addition, the first half of the article focuses on the different regulatory possibilities in regard to bioethical contexts. This demonstrates that law is of central importance to bioethics. This part also shows that even though law and ethics are often used simultaneously to achieve bioethical goals, law and ethics cannot be used interchangeably. Thus, even though it is somewhat inevitable that law will be used in the pursuit of the goals of bioethics, bioethics and bioethical principle should not be merely a vehicle for law-makers to utilise. The second half of the article focuses on the issues of autonomy and consent to demonstrate how law and ethics have developed in one of the foundation areas of bioethics.     

The future of terrorism research: a review essay

This essay sets forth a research agenda to begin filling some key gaps in terrorism studies. Since the September 2001 Al Qaeda attacks against the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon that claimed over 3000 lives, interest in terrorism research has increased. After these attacks, the United States and other governments prioritized the scientific study of the causes of and responses to terrorism. Importantly though, our review of the terrorism literature demonstrates that despite this progress, intriguing questions remain underexplored or altogether unexplored. This essay identifies four gaps in terrorism studies: (1) employing non-terrorist comparison groups, (2) broadening the dependent variable (focus of study), (3) exploring exceptions/anomalies to “established” findings, and (4) engaging measurement issues. We discuss these issues and outline a research agenda that could begin to fill these gaps.     

Data protection: The future of privacy

The Art. 29 Working Party (hereinafter “Art. 29 WP”) is an influential body comprised of representatives from the Member State Data Protection Authorities² established under the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, has recently issued an opinion with the Working Party on Police and Justice. This is quite significant, since the opinion sets out some of the issues that will need to be addressed in the lead up to the revision of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.³ This comes at a time, when there have been discussions on the current application of the European Data Protection Directive to the internet,⁴ (such as social networking) and the recent European Commission’s consultation on the legal framework for the fundamental right to protection of personal data. Not least, there have been a number of cases brought before the European Court of Justice dealing with the partial implementation of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.⁵The aim of this paper is to consider in detail the issues set out by the Art. 29 WP and the likely challenges in revising the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.