Dr. Amal Matar is an Egyptian physician and bioethicist. At the time of this interview, she worked at the Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics at Uppsala University as part of the Human Brain Project. Her research includes international research ethics, the ethics of reproductive technologies and genomics, and empirical neuroethics.
You are a physician. Why did you decide to pursue research in bioethics and neuroethics?
In many developing countries, people are constantly challenged to do the “right” thing, particularly where corruption is widespread. The grey zone between right and wrong grows, morally sound decisions become less clear, and the environment may enable less ethical action. Many medical practitioners, especially in developing countries, also lack the time and tools for self-reflection. They are often overwhelmed with work and may hold two or three jobs to maintain a decent living.
I believe that learning about ethics and ethical reasoning helps diminish uncertainty in moral decision-making. The distinction between wrong and right actions becomes clearer. When I began reading bioethics and medical ethics, I realized how much medical education lacked in this area, even though practitioners encounter ethical dilemmas every day. We may recite the Hippocratic Oath at graduation, but applying fixed principles to complex realities is difficult.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of multidisciplinary work?
A major advantage is learning to see your field through very different eyes. You become more critical, and what once appeared defined and objective may no longer seem so. When I discuss a bioethical topic, I better understand how philosophers and social scientists approach it. I can help make abstract ideas more concrete and relevant to practice in laboratories and hospitals, while also engaging with conceptual discussions that offer clarity and alternative meanings even when they do not produce a direct solution.
A major disadvantage is that different disciplines may assign very different meanings or interpretations to the same issue. This can produce conflicts and misunderstandings that dialogue does not always resolve. There are also differences in expectations about how work should be conducted. Scholars in the hard sciences often prefer predefined methods designed to ensure validity and reliability. Researchers in the humanities may take a more flexible approach and recognize that some phenomena exist on a spectrum that is difficult to capture in a laboratory or rigid methodology.
I believe a multidisciplinary approach gives a concept or problem greater depth and captures a more complete picture than a single-discipline study.