Joe Carter reports that the president has disbanded the President’s Council on Bioethics:
Earlier this week, members of the President’s Council on Bioethics were told by the White House that their services were no longer needed. President Obama’s decision was made and implemented in his typical style—gracious, pragmatic, and imprudent. According to the New York Times, the council was disbanded because it was designed by the Bush administration to be “a philosophically leaning advisory group” that favored discussion over developing a shared consensus. The new bioethics commission appointed by Obama will have a new mandate to offer “practical policy options.”
In other words, the Obama administration already knows where it stands on all those pesky moral issues like human cloning, chimeras, and euthanasia, and just needs a group to provide advice on how to implement its preferred policies. Whereas the previous councils wrestled with such questions as “What is the nature of human dignity?” the new one will most likely be addressing more practical policy options, such as “How much should we pay women to harvest their eggs for cloning?”
Note again that false dichotomy between philosophical conviction and being “practical.” Note what gets left out.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Basically, the move is to eliminate discussion and precede with the exercise of power.
When did the Obama administration announce its support for human cloning? Sorry, I get it now. The writer didn’t say this was true; it’s just “most likely.” As in, this article is “most likely” right-wing nonsense.
Isn’t CHANGE wonderful!! NOT.
If you don’t have any bioethics, there is not much point in a bioethics council.
I took a class in college called “Nobel Perspectives on Science” in which each week a different Nobel prize winner (in chemistry, physics, or biology) spoke about ethics in their fields. One admitted that one of his grad students once cheated by selecting only the results that supported his thesis. But that, of course, such cheating would *always* be caught because science was always peer reviewed. Every other speaker said a variation on “science is ethically neutral, how you use it is where ethics come in and that is not what scientists worry about.” These were Nobel prize winners. At the top in their fields. And they do not concern themselves with ethics. So I have an extremely hard time trusting that the scientists will always make the best decisions. Just because you *can* do something does not mean you *should*.
If we could implement some sort of citizens’ panel like the Danish have (http://www.loka.org/pubs/techrev.htm) we would at least open the discussions. Now so many people just think “oh, it’s science, it’s too complicated, I couldn’t possibly understand, let someone else decide.” Frankly? I don’t want scientists deciding, nor do I want some separate bioethics committee deciding (although that is at least a step in the right direction). Science and technology affects all of us. Everyone should be involved. And we should *think* about it. What are some possible repercussions of certain research areas? Who are all of the people who will be affected? What good things might come from it? What negative unintended consequences might there be?
Don S (@2):
“When did the Obama administration announce its support for human cloning? Sorry, I get it now. The writer didn’t say this was true; it’s just “most likely.” As in, this article is “most likely” right-wing nonsense.”
Right. We know things like that can’t possbly happen here. But when they do, don’t say you weren’t warned.
KenM @ 6: I’m sorry, what? I didn’t understand your post at all.
DonS,
That’s because I addressed my comment to you rather than Debs.But, hey, both your names start with D. That’s close enough isn’t it?