Blogging Bioethics
When I was an undergraduate and decided to major in philosophy, the department advisor asked me what I was planning to do with my future. The answer I gave bore very little resemblance to how the next ten-plus years of my life would go. Regardless, he was honest with me about the employment prospects, and lack thereof, in the field, and suggested that I strongly consider bioethics. Given the rapid change in medical science and technology, people who could help companies and governments frame and consider the ethical questions raised by new advances would most likely find themselves in demand even outside the traditional academic world. Over a decade later, it’s hard to argue with him. Prescient as he was, I wonder if he ever envisioned the blog.bioethics.net, the blog of the editors of the American Journal of Bioethics. The editors demonstrate how demanding the field is – it requires not just an ability to think deeply and critically about ethical questions, but it requires keeping up with numerous scientific disciplines and understanding the goings-on well enough to relate the questions to the research. The blog is some fascinating reading.
It’s not surprising that a major focus for the blog over the last few weeks has been the controversy over the South Korean stem cell research program, which has been rocked by an escalating seris of ethical challenges. When I first started checking out the blog, the major concern was the issue of informed consent – were the people who donated eggs to the experiments able to fully understand what they were being asked to do, and were they in a position to say no? I’ve learned in my readings on Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments that informed consent all by itself is a blockbuster issue for scientific ethics. But that was only the beginning in this case, because it is coming to light that many of the results for which the South Korean team was so celebrated were fabricated. The issue hit the mainstream press a few days ago; the Philadelphia Inquirer covered it right before Christmas.
The bioethics blog has an interesting take on the controversy. In addition to commenting on the immediate issues of honesty and proper conduct, they are pointing out that United States researchers and regulators have very little ability to influence how stem cell research is conducted because they are not allow to work on any embryonic stem cells developed after August 2001. I find it a fairly compelling argument, even though I’m under no illusions that the American regulatory system is working on all cylinders lately. But I’m predisposed to agree with criticism of the research ban in the first place. If I weren’t, I doubt I’d be convinced by an argument that we should do something I think is immoral just because people in other countries are going to do it in an even more immoral fashion. Actually, when I put it that way, it kind of sounds like some of the justifications I’ve heard for torturing prisoners and violating their civil liberties, and I know I don’t find them persuasive.
About Dave Thomer
Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.