Realizing Bioethics' Goals in Practice: Ten Ways "Is" Can Help "Ought"‪.‬

Bioethics has been criticized for lacking relevance and for being naive. Its principles and modes of justification are better suited to handling clinical matters at the bedside or policy issues related to new technologies than for grappling with arguably more profound moral problems like racism and human rights. (1) Moreover, bioethical analyses often assume an implausible degree of rationality in human motivation and action. (2) Getting from an ideal vision of the good to an embodiment of those ideals in practice depends as much on structural factors like power, money, and socialization as on espoused values and ideals. It is not a coincidence that as these criticisms have been voiced, interest has been growing in the relationship between the social sciences and the bioethical enterprise. It is now well established that the social sciences have a lot to contribute to bioethics. (3) One cannot define "the good"--and it might even be dangerous to try--without understanding context, intentionality, and outcomes, all of which the social sciences provide.