# Bioethics: “The Science of Survival”?

Henri-Corto Stoeklé, Achille Ivasilevitch, Christian Hervé

► To cite this version:

Henri-Corto Stoeklé, Achille Ivasilevitch, Christian Hervé. Bioethics: “The Science of Survival”?. Canadian journal of bioethics / Revue canadienne de bioethique, 2022, 5 (1), pp.161. 10.7202/1087220ar . hal-04509942

HAL Id: hal-04509942

https://hal.science/hal-04509942v1

Submitted on 18 Mar 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Bioethics: “The Science of Survival”?

Henri-Corto Stoeklé, Achille Ivasilevitch et Christian Hervé

Volume 5, numéro 1, 2022

URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1087220ar

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/1087220ar

Aller au sommaire du numéro

Éditeur(s)

Programmes de bioéthique, École de santé publique de l'Université de Montréal

ISSN

2561-4665 (numérique)

Découvrir la revue

Citer ce document

Stoeklé, H.-C., Ivasilevitch, A. & Hervé, C. (2022). Bioethics: “The Science of Survival”? *Canadian Journal of Bioethics* / *Revue canadienne de bioéthique*, 5(1), 161–162. https://doi.org/10.7202/1087220ar

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

## LETTRE À L'ÉDITEUR / LETTER TO THE EDITOR

# Bioethics: “The Science of Survival”?

Henri-Corto Stoekléª, Achille Ivasilevitchª,ᵇ, Christian Hervéª,ᶜ,>d,ᵉ

**Mots-clés**

Van Rensselaer Potter, bioéthique, science, qualité de vie, survie

**Keywords**

Van Rensselaer Potter, bioethics, science, quality of life, survival

**Affiliations**

ªDepartment of Ethics and Scientific Integrity, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France

ᵇLaboratory of Business Law and New Technologies (DANTE) (UR4498), Paris-Saclay University (UVSQ), Montigny-Le-Bretonneux, France

ᶜUniversity of Paris, Paris, France

ᵈInternational Academy of Medical Ethics and Public Health, University of Paris, Paris, France

ᵉVeterinary Academy of France, Paris, France

**Correspondance / Correspondence:** Christian Hervé, christian.herve@parisdescartes.fr

In 1970, the American bioethicist and biochemist Van Rensselaer Potter, from the University of Wisconsin, defined bioethics as a “science of survival”, in an article published in the journal *Perspectives in Biology and Medicine* (1). He repeated this definition in his book *Bioethics: Bridge to the Future*, published the following year (2,3). Potter is not necessarily recognized as the inventor of bioethics (4), but he was undeniably one of its first major theorists and deserves more recognition today, as well as others.

According to Potter, bioethics can be considered to reforge the broken link between life sciences (not only biomedical sciences) and ethics – it re-establishes the meaning of the life sciences, notably by asking why and how their applications can improve quality of life and the survival of humanity (5). In other words, bioethics should not judge innovations on the basis of moral and theoretical values or norms, instead considering these innovations scientifically, for ethical and pragmatic purposes. However, many bioethicists currently take the opposite view, considering bioethics as a means of restricting innovations (6-9). There are several possible explanations for this. But one possible explanation is the founding of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics by the American bioethicist and obstetrician André Hellegers, from the University of Georgetown (7,10). Together with The Hasting Center, this institution went on to achieve global recognition in the field of bioethics, due largely to the major works of the Americans bioethicists and philosophers Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, and their book *Principles of Biomedical Ethics*, published in 1979 (11). “Principlism” corresponds to the application of four ethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice) to moral dilemmas in biomedical sciences. And it could be considered as a means of restricting innovations, at least in practice (12).

Principlism has been strongly criticized, at least since the 1990s, especially by the Canadian bioethicists and theologians David Roy and Guy Durand (13,14). For Roy and Durand, bioethics cannot be reduced to a deductive method which infers morality of all clinical or scientific practices according to only four ethical principles (13,14). They prefer inductive methods that infer ethical issues and potential solutions, practice by practice, based on direct observation and moral contextualization (13, 14). Moreover, it is clear now that moral values or standards could vary considerably between societies or individuals in space and time (15,16).

We consider these elements relevant and therefore propose the development of a synthesis of the ideas of Potter, Roy, Durand and others, like the Belgian bioethicist and philosopher Gilbert Hottois (1,2,12-14,17). Bioethics could be the “science” that studies new practices in life sciences (not only biomedical sciences) to try to identify and resolve ethical issues (tensions between values, norms and practices) based on empirical research, interdisciplinary studies (life sciences, human and social sciences, etc.) and inductive methods (probabilistic inference), as well as the actual or potential effects on the quality of life and/or the survival of the individuals and/or the societies directly or indirectly concerned by these practices, and the social and complex phenomena that they constitute.

**Reçu/Received:** 21/10/2020

**Remerciements**

Nous remercions l'hôpital Foch du soutien.

**Conflits d'intérêts**

Aucun à déclarer

**Publié/Published:** 01/02/2022

**Acknowledgements**

We thank the Foch Hospital for their support.

**Conflicts of Interest**

None to declare

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
**Édition/Editors:** Hazar Haidar

Les éditeurs suivent les recommandations et les procédures The editors follow the recommendations and procedures décrites dans le *Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines* outlined in the *COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice for Journal Editors* de COPE. Plus précisément, ils travaillent *Guidelines for Journal Editors*. Specifically, the editors will work pour s'assurer des plus hautes normes éthiques de la to ensure the highest ethical standards of publication, including: publication, y compris l'identification et la gestion des conflits the identification and management of conflicts of interest (for d'intérêts (pour les éditeurs et pour les auteurs), la juste editors and for authors), the fair evaluation of manuscripts, and évaluation des manuscrits et la publication de manuscrits qui the publication of manuscripts that meet the journal's standards répondent aux normes d'excellence de la revue. of excellence.

## REFERENCES

1. Potter V. *Bioethics, the science of survival*. Persepectives in Biology and Medicine. 1970;14(1):127-53.

2. Potter V. *Bioethics: Bridge to the Future*. Prentice-Hall ed1971.

3. Hottois G. *Les enjeux philosophiques laïques de la bioéthique*. Revue internationale d'éducation de Sèvres. 1995;5:43-53.

4. Sass HM. *Fritz Jahr's 1927 concept of bioethics*. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 2007;17(4):279-95.

5. Gaille M. *L'idée de « bioéthique globale »: un combat à reprendre ?* Le travail de la philosophie et l'histoire tronquée de l'éthique médicale. Cahiers philosophiques. 2011;125(2):131-6.

6. Dubouis L. *La bioéthique en débat*. L'information psychiatrique. 2011;87(7):551-5.

7. Maglio M. *De l'interdisciplinarité en bioéthique : histoire, pratiques et controverses*. Aux frontières des disciplines; 2016-06-17; Nancy, France2016.

8. Taguieff P-A. *L'espace de la bioéthique. Esquisse d'une problématisation*. Mots Les langages du politique. 1995;7-24.

9. Boné É. *Trente ans de réflexion bioéthique. Pluralisme et consensus*. Revue Théologique de Louvain. 2001;479-512.

10. Braunstein J-F. *Bioéthique ou philosophie de la médecine ?* Revue de métaphysique et de morale. 2014;82(2):239-56.

11. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press; 1979.

12. Hottois G. *Definir la bioethique: retour aux sources*. Rev. Col. Bioet. 2015;6(2):86-109.

13. Roy D, Williams J, Dickens B, Baudouin JL. La bioéthique, ses fondements et ses controverses. Editions du Renouveau Pédagogique; 1995.

14. Durand G. Introduction générale à la bioéthique: histoire, concepts et outils. FIDES; 2007.

15. Massé R. Anthropologie de la morale et de l'éthique. Presses de l'Université de Laval; 2015.

16. Cleret De Langavant G. Bioéthique: méthode et compléxité. Presses de l'Université du Québec; 2001.

17. Potter V. *Deux genres de bioéthique*. Cahiers philosophiques. 2011;125(2):137-51.