Ideology and methodology

Bioethicists often focus on using philosophy to help analyze issues, and philosophical bioethicists such as Peter Singer tend to treat the field as a branch of moral or ethical philosophy. However, this approach is sometimes challenged, and bioethics is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary. Many bioethicists come from backgrounds outside of academic philosophy, and some even claim that the methods of analytic philosophy have had a negative effect on the field's development.

Religious bioethicists have developed rules and guidelines on how to deal with these issues from within the viewpoint of their respective faiths. Some Western secular bioethicists are critical of the fact that these are usually religious scholars without an academic degree or training in disciplines that pertain to the issues, such as philosophy (wherein the formal study of ethics is usually found), biology or medicine.
Many religious bioethicists are Jewish or Christian scholars. However a growing number of religious scholars from other religions have become involved in this field as well. Islamic clerics have begun to write on this topic. Muslim bioethicists include Abdulaziz Sachedina, at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. There has been some criticism by liberal Muslims that only the more religiously conservative voices in Islam are being heard on this issue.

In the case of most non-Western cultures a strict separation of religion from philosophy does not exist. In many Asian cultures, there is a lively (and often less dogmatic, but more pragmatic) discussion on bioethical issues. The discussion often refers to common demographic policies which are criticised, as in the case of China. Buddhist bioethics, in general, is characterised by a naturalistic outlook that leads to a rationalistic, pragmatic approach. Buddhist bioethicists include Damien Keown. In Africa, and partly also in Latin America, the debate on bioethics frequently focus on its practical relevance in the context of underdevelopment and (national or global) power relations.

Bioethics ??

Bioethics concerns the ethical questions that arise in the relationships between biology, medicine, cybernetics, politics, law, philosophy, and theology. Disagreement exists about the proper scope for the application of ethical evaluation to questions involving biology. Some bioethicists would narrow ethical evaluation only to the morality of medical treatments or technological innovations, and the timing of medical treatment of humans. Other bioethicists would broaden the scope of ethical evaluation to include the morality of all actions that might help or harm organisms capable of feeling fear and pain.

Bioethics involves many public policy questions that are sometimes politicized and used to mobilize political constituencies, hence the emergence of biopolitics and its techno-progressive/bioconservative branches. For this reason, some biologists and others involved in the development of technology have come to see any mention of "bioethics" as an attempt to derail their work and react to it as such, regardless of the true intent. Some biologists can be inclined to this line of thought, as they see their work as inherently ethical, and attacks on it as misguided.

the next be ideology of biothics..

Environmental ethics

Environmental ethics considers the ethical relationship between human beings and the natural environment. It exerts influence on a large range of disciplines including law, sociology, theology, economics and geography. There are many ethical decisions that human beings make with respect to the environment. For example:

Should we continue to clear cut the forests for the sake of human consumption?

Should we continue to make gasoline powered vehicles, depleting fossil fuel resources while the technology exists to create zero-emission vehicles?

What environmental obligations do we need to keep for future generations?
Is it right for humans to knowingly cause the extinction of a species for the (perceived or real) convenience of humanity?

Environmental ethics is properly but a sub-section of environmental philosophy, which includes environmental aesthetics, environmental theology, and indeed all the branches of philosophical investigation (e.g., epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of science, etc).

The academic field of environmental ethics grew up in response to the work of scientists such as Rachel Carson and events such as the first Earth Day in 1970, when environmentalists started urging philosophers to consider the philosophical aspects of environmental problems. Two papers published in Science had a crucial impact: Lynn White's "The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis" (March 1967)[1] and Garrett Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons" (December 1968).[2] Also influential was an essay in Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac, "The Land Ethic," in which Leopold explicitly claimed that the roots of the ecological crisis were philosophical (1949).[3]

In the Journal of Applied Philosophy Alan Marshall writes of a natural ecological balance between the animate (living entities) and the inanimate (non-living entities) that existed for centuries (1993).[4] For Marshall however, the rapid industrialization of the last 300 years has led to a major imbalance. Today growing concerns about global warming underline the general acceptance that environmental preservation is of vital importance. However, it is the grounds upon which one justifies the argument for or against preservation that is the subject of ethical debate, and this invariably includes a personal stance on non-human animal and non-animal rights.

There have been many attempts to categorize the different attempts to justify the importance of the preservation of the environment. Alan Marshall and Michael Smith are two recent examples of this, as cited by Peter Vardy in "The Puzzle of Ethics".

For Marshall, three ethical approaches have emerged over the last 20 years; the Libertarian Extension, the Ecologic Extension and Conservation Ethics.

Get the info below..

1 Libertarian extension
2 Ecologic extension
3 Conservation ethics

Monetary value

Monetary value for what?? money ? income ? or else..

While it is difficult to establish the net value of a species, it can be estimated.

The Amazon Rainforest is a well known biodiversity hotspot.

In Cape Province, South Africa the native vegetation of the area is the fynbos, a type of shrub. The fynbos are able to survive long periods of drought, periodic fires, and poor soil conditions; the plants are harvested annually with annual a yield of about $19 billion. Recently exotic plants have threatened the endemic fynbos. The new plants grow larger; increasing the severity of periodic fires. More importantly they transpire more water; reducing the local streams to half their normal water flow.

Removing the exotic species will cost between $140 US and $830 US per hectare and $8 US per hectare to maintain every year after. Alternatively, a sewage purification plant would cost $135 million US to build and $2.6 million US per year to maintain. Desalination of surrounding coastal waters would cost four times as much.

Importance of conservation

Extinction of a species is an irreversible act. Once gone, an exterminated species represents a lost resource of unknown value. While the net value of any one species is virtually impossible to represent in pure numerical or monetary figures, individual reasons for conservation can be demonstrated.

The Indianapolis Prize is the world's leading award for animal conservation. The Indianapolis Prize includes a US$100,000 cash award and the Lilly Medal, which are presented every two years to a conservationist who has made substantial contributions toward the sustainability of an animal species or group of species. Selected by a globally-renowned nominating committee and jury, the finalists for the 2006 Indianapolis Prize include Dr. George Archibald (cranes); Dr. Holly Dublin (African elephants and other IUCN-listed species); Dr. Iain Douglas Hamilton (African elephants); Dr. David Meche (wolves); Dr. Roger Payne (whales and other cetaceans); and Dr. Simon Stuart (amphibians). Award-winning actress Jane Alexander is the host of the 2006 Indianapolis Prize Gala. Honorary Chairs include Harrison Ford, Ted Turner, Roger Sant, Senator Richard Lugar, and Senator Evan Bayh.

Ehmm...what u think about this ??

Conservation biology

Conservation biology, or conservation ecology, is the protection and management of biodiversity that uses principles and experiences from the biological sciences, from natural resource management, and from the social sciences, including economics. Put another way, conservation biology is the scientific study of the phenomena that affect the maintenance, loss, and restoration of biological diversity. Much of conservation ecology deals with the problems associated with the small population sizes of rare species.

The term "conservation biology" refers to the science and sometimes is used to encompass also the application of this science, that is, the conservation of genetic diversity, species and populations. It also includes saving and restoration of ecosystems and habitats.

The concern of this branch of biology is to help save the diversity of life on Earth through applied conservation research. In the realm of research, biologists seek creative and effective ways to address a wide diversity of ecological problems, ranging from endangered species to regional conservation planning. This translates to developing better conservation tools, analyses, and techniques.

The terms ecology and conservation are frequently used interchangeably, although not all ecologists are conservationists.

One theoretical tool useful in conservation biology is the Unified neutral theory of biodiversity.

I got this from wikipedia.com..