For example, in 1999, Hope described six ways that empirical research contributes to medical ethics, recognizing that philosophical arguments often depend on facts. First, are empirical research findings that identify new issues and perspectives. Second, are assessments of the effectiveness of different interventions. Third, are surveys regarding beliefs. Fourth, are data regarding different states of health. Fifth, are assessments of the costs of healthcare. Sixth, are examinations of actual decisions.

In 2001, in Methods in Medical Ethics, Sulmasy and Sugarman described eight ways in which empirical research contributes to bioethics: 1) purely descriptive studies; 2) testing established or new norms; 3) descriptions of facts relevant to normative arguments; 4) slippery slope arguments; 5) assessing likely consequences; 6) the empirical testing of normative theories; 7) case reports; and 8) demonstration projects.

In 2005, Solomon identified ten relationships between empirical research and conceptual scholarship, which she lumped into three categories: 1) facilitating the move from ethical analysis to ethically justified behavior; 2) enhancing ethical analysis and justification; and 3) generating new ethical concerns. The first category includes documenting gaps between espoused ideals and actual practice; revealing the nature of individual moral reflection and level of personal skill at ethical analysis; describing the institutional and environmental context that mediates moral action; and providing data to stimulate individual and institutional moral accountability. The second includes testing consequentialist claims; validating, refuting, or modifying principles in light of their relevance to moral agents; and recognizing the relevance of otherwise neglected ethical principles. The third includes identifying and documenting new moral problems; more clearly specifying acknowledged problems; and clarifying causal mechanisms.