[extropy-chat] VP Summit: Washington Post Article on Bioethics Council

[natashavita at earthlink.net]

'gene, here it is.  (Psst ... List Moderators, am I going to get in trouble
with the list for doing this? - Natasha)

"A 'Full Range' of Bioethical Views Just Got Narrower 

By Elizabeth H. Blackburn
Sunday, March 7, 2004; Page B02 

The phone rang a few days after Sept. 11, 2001. It was Leon Kass, chairman
of the brand-new President's Council on Bioethics, calling to ask: Would I
join this White House-appointed federal commission charged with advising
the president on ethical issues arising from advances in biomedical science
and technology? 
 
As a cell biologist who had spent years investigating causes of cancer and
human aging, I had already begun thinking about the ramifications of such
research. Like many people at that tumultuous time, I also felt eager to do
something -- anything -- to serve a cause larger than myself. I understood
that the council would include not just biomedical scientists but medical
doctors, philosophers and legal and policy experts, and Kass assured me it
would consider diverse views and avoid foregone conclusions. I agreed then
and there to serve. Little did I guess that a scant two and half years
later a White House phone call would notify me that my services were no
longer needed. 

In the weeks it took to finalize the appointment, I reflected on my
decision. I knew that council discussions were likely to present
challenges; for years Kass, a professor of social thought, had expressed
views I believed to be unfriendly to many aspects of biomedical research
and contemporary medicine. But I felt that as a seasoned scientist whose
own work touched on these areas, I could help the council distinguish
between real, experimentally validated science and what amounted to sheer
flimflam on issues muddled by competing voices and agendas, and little
data. 

In January 2002, the entire 18-member council met with President Bush at
the White House. His initial directive was for us to report on the ethics
of therapeutic cloning (also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer) and
reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning involves making early-stage
pre-implantation embryos for use as sources of stem cells -- for research
and to be used in cures -- while reproductive cloning refers to the
creation of cloned babies by transferring cloned embryos to a womb for
gestation and birth. I was encouraged when Bush stressed that he wanted to
hear the full range of views on those and other questions. 

When I read the council's first discussion documents, my heart sank. The
language was not what I was used to seeing in scientific discourse -- it
seemed to me to present pre-judged views and to use rhetoric to make
points. Still, the debates we had in the ensuing months proved far-ranging,
and all comments were politely received. And, despite the betting of
outsiders, 10 of the council's 17 members (one had retired) initially voted
against recommending a ban on therapeutic cloning. A late change to the
question being voted on turned the minority who were in favor of a ban into
a majority of 10 favoring a four-year moratorium, an option the council had
not discussed in meetings. But the report issued in July 2002 contained a
breadth of views. It also contained a series of personal statements by
council members, many of them dissenting from the report's official
recommendations. 

In the year and a half following that report, I began to sense much less
tolerance from the chairman for dissenting views. I will focus only on
embryonic stem cell research. 

Work with animal models had been indicating the potential benefits of such
research for more than two decades. More recently, breakthrough research
had suggested for the first time that those avenues of investigation would
be possible in humans, with revolutionary implications for health care. Yet
at council meetings, I consistently sensed resistance to presenting human
embryonic stem cell research in a way that would acknowledge the
scientific, experimentally verified realities. The capabilities of
embryonic versus adult stem cells, and their relative promise for medicine,
were obfuscated. Although I was not able to attend every meeting, I engaged
fully in preparations for the report: I read and assessed the published
science, attended presentations on new research at national and
international scientific conferences, and consulted with cell biologists,
including stem cell biologists, across the country. The information I
submitted was not reflected in the report drafts. 

Clearly, the council's reports concerned politically charged topics. I knew
that my views on cloning and stem cell research did not match those of
either Kass or Bush, as I understood them: In his public statements, the
president had supported banning therapeutic as well as reproductive
cloning. Still, I was not prepared for the phone call I received at home
from the White House on Wednesday, Feb. 25. The caller requested that on
Friday afternoon I call the White House Personnel Office. No hint was given
as to the reason. When I called, the director said that the White House had
decided to "make changes" in the council and that it was adding new people
to replace some individual members. I asked him whether this meant that my
term on the council had terminated, and the reply was yes. 

And what "changes" they were. I was one of just three full-time biomedical
scientists on the council. William May, a deeply thoughtful, erudite
theologian and medical ethicist, was also leaving. He, too, had often
differed with Kass on issues such as the moral worth of biomedical research
and the ramifications of trying to legislate such research. And he, too,
had voted against both a ban and a moratorium on therapeutic cloning. 

When I read the published views of the three new members (bringing the
council up to its original total of 18 members), it seemed to me they
represented a loss of balance in the council, both professionally and
philosophically. None was a biomedical scientist, and the views of all
three were much closer to the views espoused by Kass than mine or May's
were. One, a surgeon who was not a scientist, had championed a larger place
for religious values in public life. Another was a political philosopher
who had publicly praised Kass's work; the third, a political scientist, had
described research in which embryos are destroyed as "evil." 

Why do I find the concept of banning embryonic stem cell research so
troubling? Leon Kass has suggested that society should make decisions based
on what he calls the "wisdom of repugnance." I think this is an unreliable
kind of wisdom. Repugnance should serve not as a basis for any decision,
but rather as a signal for honest, critical examination of what inspired
it. In some instances, repugnance may indeed hint at moral qualms that will
withstand the rigors of analytical questioning. But it may also simply
reflect habit or custom. 

I am convinced that enlightened societies can only make good policy when
that policy is based on the broadest possible information and on reasoned,
open discussion. Narrowness of views on a federal commission is not
conducive to the nation getting the best possible advice. My experience
with the debate on embryonic stem cell research, however, suggests to me
that a hardening and narrowing of views is exactly what is happening on the
President's Council on Bioethics. 

On Super Tuesday, four days after the White House call, I stopped by the
garage at a local house that served as my neighborhood's polling station.
In the soft, early-evening light, it felt far removed from the brightly lit
pomp and splendor of the White House I had visited two years earlier as a
member of the Bioethics Council. Here in this garage, men and women also
were volunteering their efforts, contributing to the civic good. They
beamed and congratulated me when I mentioned that I, a native-born
Australian, had recently become a U.S. citizen. A surge of appreciation
swept through me as they went about their tasks, watchfully protecting due
process. In this down-home setting, that charge suddenly felt so precious,
and so fragile."

Elizabeth Blackburn is a professor of biochemistry at the University of
California at San Francisco and a member of the National Academy of
Sciences and the Institute of Medicine.






On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:34:43AM -0500, natashavita at earthlink.net wrote:
> Greg Burch sent the Summit a link to a March 6th aticle in the Washington
> Post written by Elizabeth Blackburn who was "fired" from Kass's Bioethics
> Council.
> 
> It is very pertinent and I hope Prof. Blackburn will be able to discuss
> this at the an "after Summit" virtual event.
> 
> >  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35471-2004Mar6.html
> >One of Kass' fired committee members fires back!
> 
> If you have an opportunity, please read it.

It seems to require sacrificing your firstborn to the Dark Gods, can someone
please post the full text?

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .