In this chapter Evans defines a “critical disability studies bioethics.” Evans defines the possibility space of such a position by giving a critical history of bioethics in general, focusing on biases that make difficult being both a disability studies scholar and a bioethicist. He argues that concerns of critical disability studies may be hard to integrate with mainstream bioethics.

The traditional claim in the literature on religion and science is that exposure to science leads to secularity because the claims about the natural world in the two systems are incompatible. More recently, research has narrowed this claim and shown that conflict over knowledge in the USA is primarily limited to one religion-conservative Protestantism- A nd only to a few fact claims. In this paper, I test this claim using longitudinal data from matched surveys taken in students' first and fourth year of university. I find no evidence that the science is more secularizing than nonscience. I then turn to a distinction in university majors long used by sociologists of education-between majors focused on inquiry versus those focused on applying knowledge- A nd find that majors focused on inquiry are more likely to secularize than those focused on application. I interpret this to mean that learning to inquire secularizes.

While citizens can know scientific facts, they also have faith in science - with faith defined as a firm belief for which there is no proof. Using national public opinion surveys from twelve nations from 1993 to 2010, I examine three different types of faith in science that citizens could hold. I examine temporal changes in levels of faith in science as well as the social determinants of each type of faith. I focus on the implications of these levels of faith for the transhumanist movement, which is particularly dependent on faith in science. I find that two of three types of faith in science are on the rise across the West, and that the social determinants of these types of faith suggest particular challenges for the transhumanist movement.

I respond to commentaries by Daniel Callahan and William J. Winslade on my article, "Defending the Jurisdiction of the Clinical Ethicist," all of which are in this issue of JCE.

In response to Flamm and Kodish, I argue that our misunderstanding or disagreement is primarily the result of different definitions of power. I also disagree with them and claim that they are indeed using the public's ethics. Finally, I argue that there is no reason to think that bioethicists cannot have the same sort of influence in the boardroom that they have in the clinic.

Due to conservative Protestant elites challenging scientists in the public sphere, and prominent scientists attacking religion, scholars have claimed that there is an increasing conflict between conservative Protestants and science. However, these claims have never been empirically investigated and these general claims do not specify what conflict is actually about. In this article I use the General Social Survey from 1984 to 2010 to examine whether conservative Protestants are increasingly opposed to the social and moral influence of scientists. I find evidence for increasing opposition by biblical literalist conservative Protestants to the involvement of scientists in social debates about moral issues. © 2013 The Society for the Scientific Study of Religion.