Bioethics Dissertation Topics

Bioethics Dissertation Topics

Info: Bioethics Dissertation Topics
Published: 02nd December in Bioethics Dissertation Topics

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Linkedin

Related Services

Our academic writing and marking services can help you

Bioethics Dissertation Topics I phdassistance.com

Introduction

The PhD dissertation topics presented here point out some research gaps that are not only very important but also the most current across the fields of bioethics, clinical AI governance, reproductive technology studies, historical marine ecology, and the history of international environmental law. These titles are designed to guide PhD researchers and authors in identifying compelling research topics, with each gap backed by references and recent scholarly articles to facilitate idea generation and literature review. The themes cover a range of issues such as the lack of clear definitions in biotechnology ethics, the ongoing distrust in clinical AI, the lack of consensus in the discourse surrounding artificial womb technology, global disparities in marine ecological research, and the forgotten religions of the scientific bases of early biodiversity law. The topics, therefore, make it possible to start new, interdisciplinary research on ethics, governance, and historical knowledge, thus providing the academic community with large areas of innovation and contribution.

Dissertation Topic 1:

Clarifying Ethical Reasoning in Emerging Biotechnologies: Differentiating Slippery Slope Arguments and Dual Use Concerns in CRISPR-Cas9 Governance

Background Context

The ethical debates surrounding CRISPR-Cas9 primarily revolve around slope arguments and dual-use issues, yet the literature frequently confuses these two forms of reasoning. Such mixing of concepts not only weakens ethical evaluations but also obscures the character of potential harm and results in varying or incorrect proposals for the regulation of gene editing ethical issues. Kropf (2024), published an article in the journal Research Ethics, highlighting the level of confusion in this field by demonstrating that the existing literature does not offer a clear philosophical separation of these two types of arguments. This signals the necessity of a robust conceptual framework that will be able to distinguish the functions of each type of argument in the governance of CRISPR-Cas9 ethics.
PhD-Level Verification
This topic is a direct response to a well-established research gap: the lack of philosophical differentiation between slippery slope arguments and dual use problems in bioethical debate. The investigation has a substantial potential for original theoretical contribution through its effort to provide a clearer conceptual basis for the evaluation of CRISPR-Cas9 governance.
Research Questions

• In the scenario of emerging biotechnologies, what are the differences that relate to ethics between slippery slope proponents and dual-use problems?
• What method can be used to accurately assess the ethical risks connected to CRISPR-Cas9 by distinguishing between these arguments?
• To what extent does conflation of concepts affect ethical decisions, public remarks, and standards of the regulation in the case of genome editing technologies?

PhD-Level Contributions

• An ontological framework that distinctly prefigures the limits of the concepts’ slippery slope arguments and dual use concerns.
• A list of criteria to specify the correct use of each argument type in the evaluation of CRISPR-Cas9 ethics.
• Advice for the governance of scientists, ethicists, and regulators to enhance their decisions by bypassing the confusion caused by different interpretations in ethical reasoning.

Reference

Kropf, M. (2024). The ethically significant difference between dual use and slippery slope arguments, in relation to CRISPR-Cas9: philosophical considerations and ethical challenges. Research Ethics, 21(2), 346-361. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241240587 (Original work published 2025)

Dissertation Topic 2:

Bridging the Trust Gap in Clinical AI: A Comprehensive Ethical and Implementation Framework for Strengthening Patient and Clinician Confidence

Background Context
AI technology has been gaining popularity in the areas of oncology for diagnosis, treatment planning, and decision support. However, trust is still the most significant obstacle that blocks their use in clinics. Existing literature points to issues such as algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, poor clinical validation, and concerns over the loss of control in clinical judgment as the main reasons for the mistrust. Despite the lack of studies that provide an integrated framework for the ethical, technical, and cultural drivers of distrust, Cooney-Waterhouse et al. (2025), in their paper published in the AI in Precision Oncology journal, illustrated the deficiency of research in this area. This absence signals the urgent need for a multi-stakeholder, evidence-based trust-building model that addresses the complex healthcare AI implementation challenges inherent in high-risk clinical fields such as oncology.
PhD-Level Verification
The issue highlights a clear and well-documented research gap: the lack of a complete framework that combines all the stakeholders’ concerns and gives structured trust-building pathways to clinical AI—particularly in the field of oncology, which is extremely high-risk. Therefore, this makes the issue very appropriate for an original PhD contribution in bioethics, health technology governance, or clinical AI ethics.
Research Questions

• What ethical, technical, and cultural factors are causing the mistrust of AI in oncology clinicians and patients?
• How can the ethical principles and clinical needs be aligned through a multi-stakeholder trust framework in the AI design, validation, and deployment process?
• What measures can be taken to ensure that AI systems in oncology practice are implemented in a transparent, accountable, and patient-centred manner?

PhD-Level Contributions

• An all-encompassing ethical and implementation framework has been developed, incorporating the views of patient, clinician, and developer, which systematically addresses the trust gap.
• A review of how clinical validation, transparency mechanisms, and data governance can be reformed to back up the deployment of trustworthy AI.
• A list of practical recommendations for oncology institutes and AI developers to increase the interpretability, accountability, and patient-clinician communication during AI-assisted treatment.

Reference

Cooney-Waterhouse, T., Ou, W., Mukherji, S., Frytak, J., Saha, P., & Waterhouse, D. (2025). Bridging the Trust Gap in Artificial Intelligence for Health care: Lessons from Clinical Oncology. AI in Precision Oncology, 2(3), 85-91. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/aipo.2025.0001

Dissertation Topic 3:

Mapping Ethical, Legal, and Social Debates on Artificial Womb Technology: Identifying Evidence Gaps and Governance Challenges

Background Context
Artificial Womb Technology (AWT) has made great strides since the introduction of the “Biobag” in 2016, bringing artificial womb ethics and artificial womb legal challenges into mainstream public and academic debate. But the various disciplines have not yet found a common language to address the concerns that AWT has raised in the areas of bioethics, law, reproductive medicine, and sociology. Hukku, Wynn, and Foster (2025), in Systematic Reviews, make a point of illustrating the fragmentation of the literature by being the first to identify the absence of a coherent synthesis of ethical, legal, and social (ELS) debates. This void not only delays but also misleads the work of policymakers and academics in the area of future governance of ectogenesis, since they wouldn’t be able to foresee the coming challenges and thus not be able to design appropriate frameworks for the future of ectogenesis.
PhD Level Verification
The existence of a well-defined research gap cannot be missed: the ELS conflicts surrounding AWT have not been systematically reviewed or scoped. The novelty and disruptive effects of ectogenesis affirm the need for a doctoral study that will lay out these debates, pinpoint the conflicting concepts, and indicate the evidence gaps needing to be filled by future research.
Research Questions

• What are the main ethical, legal, and social issues in the debates around AWT?
• Where do conceptual disputes and literature gaps still exist?
• In what way can the mapping of these debates be beneficial for the advancement of research and the development of governance frameworks?

PhD-Level Contributions

• An integrated chart of AWT’s ethical, legal, and social discussions.
• The location of gaps in proof and the pointing out of non-agreed-upon standards.
• The groundwork for the research priorities and the preventive governance of the future.

Reference

Hukku, S., Wynn, L.L. & Foster, A.M. What are the ethical, legal, and social debates surrounding artificial womb technology? A scoping review protocol. Syst Rev 14, 198 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02940-x

Dissertation Topic 4:

Addressing Global Biases in Historical Marine Ecology: A Decolonial and Methodological Framework for Inclusive Biodiversity Research

Background
Historical Marine Ecology Research has come a long way as a discipline, but its global significance is still minimal persistent marine biodiversity data bias, including geographical, taxonomic and methodological biases. Research activity is predominantly concentrated in the Global North and on species that have high commercial value, and thus the Indian, Arctic and Southern Oceans regions, along with many unknown species, still remain mostly unstudied. In the new paper, Del Valle et al. (2025) in Philosophical Transactions B show that the use of quantitative archival data only, with very little input from museum collections or local ecological knowledge, leads to incomplete historical baselines and limited conservation insights. The gaps created thus highlight the necessity of a global HME framework that is more inclusive and decolonised.
PhD-Level Verification
The dissertation that I am writing is meant to tackle the geographical coverage gaps, taxonomic representation, and methodological diversity in HME that are all well-documented but unresolved. It is going to be a very original work with great appeal to the scientists.
Research Questions
  • • What are the roles of colonial and institutional biases in determining the geographical distribution of HME research and limiting Global South participation?
    • In what ways do taxonomic biases play a role in the shaping of ecological narratives and the setting of conservation priorities as a result of HME studies?
    • What is the role of qualitative sources—like museum specimens and local ecological knowledge—in diversifying and strengthening HME methodologies?
Contributions at the PhD-Level

• A decolonial theoretical framework that reveals the structural inequalities in global marine biodiversity.
• Datasets enriched with information about overlooked ocean areas and lesser-known species.
• A mixed-methods approach that illustrates the possibility of using qualitative sources as a supplement to quantitative HME evidence.

Reference

Del Valle, E., Hayes, P., Martínez-Candelas, I., Brown, P., & McClenachan, L. (2025). Systematic review of global historical marine ecology reveals geographical and taxonomic research gaps and biases. Philosophical Transactions B, 380(1930), 20240279. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstb.2024.0279

Dissertation Topic 5:

Science Behind Empire: Reassessing the Role of Evolutionary Biology in the Making of Early International Biodiversity Law (1860–1900)

Background Context
The majority of historical research regarding the 1900 London Convention tends to accept MacKenzie’s interpretation of the pact as an imperial move made by nobility hunters and racially prejudiced interests. But this viewpoint ignores some documents preserved in archives that show how evolutionary zoologists and science-based lawmakers were really behind the introduction of the first wildlife protection laws. Hickling (2025), in his article in the Transnational Environmental Law journal, demonstrates that Darwin’s ecological theories —linking evolutionary biology and law, together with the Wildlife Preservation Acts of the past, soon led to the incorporation of modern conservation methods—like closed seasons, bag limits, and reserves—into international law. The scientific impact that has been neglected has revealed a major historiographical gap in the explanation of early biodiversity governance.
PhD-Level Verification
This subject matter deals with a well-defined, open gap that is filled by reintroducing science and scientists into the history of biodiversity law and offering a more precise scientific–legal reconstruction of early biodiversity governance.
Research Questions

• The legal innovations that eventually led to the 1900 London Convention were influenced by natural scientists and scientific institutions, how?
• In what way does a scientific-focused study cut across the prevailing imperial-hunting narrative in the historical writings?
• In what ways did scientific ecological knowledge get converted into legal instruments such as closed seasons, bag limits, and wildlife sanctuaries?

PhD-Level Contributions

• A new historical model that gives scientists a significant role in the formation of the first international biodiversity law.
• The working of scientific-legal networks around the Convention’s development has been reconstructed.
• Evidence showing that modern conservation principles were earlier and more scientifically grounded than assumed.

Reference

Conclusion

Need assistance finalising your dissertation topic? Selecting a strong, researchable topic can be challenging — but you don’t have to do it alone.
Our research consultants can help refine your ideas, identify literature gaps, and guide you toward a topic that aligns with current academic trends and your programme requirements.
Contact us to begin one-on-one topic development and refinement with PhdAssistance.com Research Lab.

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Linkedin

Cite this work

Study Resources

Free resources to assist you with your university studies!

Research Questions

This will close in 0 seconds