Few politicians seem eager to clear away the fog that has settled over many issues in the fi eld of biotechnology—from cloning to stem-cell research to genetic and pharmacological enhancement. To assess the likelihood of future legislative action on these crucial matters and the larger political significance of the biotechnology revolution, the Center sponsored a seminar on November 20 called “The Bioethics Debate: Where We Are, Where We’re Heading.” Center fellow Eric Cohen, director of the Biotechnology and American Democracy project and moderator of the session, observed that “it’s hard to know who is making progress” in translating arguments and principles into serious political support.
Science reporter Aaron Zitner of the Los Angeles Times emphasized that “public opinion is still wide open about the genetic revolution,” weighing its negative potential for creating embryo farms and turning children into consumer goods against its positive potential for “eradicating all kinds of diseases.” Meanwhile, uneasy corporate investors have been withdrawing funds from the sector, even as entire areas of biotechnology remain largely unregulated. Zitner predicted that “the logjam will continue on the Brownback bill,” which would ban all human cloning, because of the continuing controversy over the use of cloned embryos for medical research. And other legislation that proposes legal protections or limits on embryo research quickly becomes mired in abortion politics.
Turning to the executive branch, Dean Clancy of the President’s Council on Bioethics explained that the council focuses on biotechnologies that empower us to “remake human life.” While similar panels previously sought to “protect human subjects,” this one seeks to “protect our humanity” more broadly. The council’s first report, which recommends “a four-year moratorium on cloning for biomedical research coupled with a permanant ban on cloning to produce children,” significantly goes “beyond the safety argument.” Cloning is indeed unsafe, Clancy said, but it is also unethical because it transforms “procreation into a form of manufacture and confounds the relations of the generations.” The council is now studying such issues as genetic enhancement and other technologies that “take us beyond healing.” The public must understand these debates, he insisted, so that important decisions will not be left entirely to “unelected
elites” or “unquestioning fate.”
William Kristol of The Weekly Standard provided a general overview of the political debate and lamented that the whole issue of cloning “remains unsettled.” He agreed with Zitner that “the fl uidity of public opinion” on these matters is allowing politicians “to avoid making tough choices,” which they are happy to do for as long as possible. Action is now likely only in the wake of a dramatic event, or because a leader decides “to make this the issue of his or her political career” and “take it to the country.” But central issues such as these demand a resolution, Kristol concluded, and “do come to a head at some
point.”
Among those joining in the discussion that followed were Bethanie Adels of the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, Irakly Areshidze of Johns Hopkins SAIS, Marty Dannanfelser of the Department of Health and of the Department of Health and Human Services, Doug Hunt of New Technologies Forum, Jonathan Imbody of the Christian Medical Association, Yuval Levin of the President’s Council on Bioethics, Bill Saunders of the Family Research Council, Jeff Stoltzfoos of Senator Santorum’s office, and Christina Wen of the International Center for Technology Assessment.
