One has to wonder, is "bioethics" -- as practiced (or sold) in most contexts -- anything more than a political movement masquerading as an academic discipline or as moral reflection? Check out this announcement for a symposium, "The Legacy of the Terri Schiavo Case: Why is it so hard to die in America?", sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics. Consider also this letter, addressed to "friend[s]" of the Center, from Dr. Arthur Caplan, its Director:
From: Arthur Caplan [ mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 4:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Penn Center for Bioethics
January 2006
Dear Friend,
Do you think that the South Korean cloning scandal could mean the end of embryonic stem cell research? To the opponents of this research it
should. But, the Center for Bioethics is playing a key role in insuring
that ideology does not overwhelm sound science.
The battle over whether the US should permit and fund embryonic stem
cell research has grown especially heated in recent months. While acts
of impropriety regarding cloning have rocked the scientific community,
the failure of one scientist is not grounds for abandoning a promising
area of scientific research.
I am pleased to share with you examples of ways our faculty informed,
challenged and advised policy makers, patient advocacy groups, the
religious community, the media, industry, students, and the public. We
identified the issues, clarified the science and promoted debate on the
ethical, legal and social implications as well as the potential risks
and benefits of stem cell research. On this issue alone, last year
Center faculty:
• testified or helped prepare testimony for legislative committees in
the states of CA, DE, MO and MA; briefed the Lt. Governor of
Massachusetts and a number of candidates for the US Senate;
• addressed many diverse groups and fielded literally hundreds of media
inquiries;
• helped organize and testified at a hearing on the Penn campus with
members of the Democratic caucus from the Pennsylvania legislature;
• sponsored public forums together with the College of Physicians of
Philadelphia, WHYY Public Radio in Philadelphia, Temple University, the
University of Louisville, Committee for the Advancement of Medical
Research, Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and the University
of Oslo in Norway;
• published key articles in a variety of peer-reviewed journals. (Our
study on embryo disposal practices at fertility clinics was requested
often and cited frequently in policy debates in this country and abroad.);
• published an article comparing policies in the UK and the USA on
governance of fertility treatment programs including handling of eggs
and embryos for research;
• assisted the National Can cer Institute, IBM and the National Disease
Research Interchange in beginning to formulate policy about ownership
and access to various forms of stem cells.
We believe that our efforts are empowering policymakers, the media, and
your elected officials with the knowledge to understand the issues
better, and increasing the chances that they will support potentially
life-saving research. Shaping public opinion and policy could, in turn,
make a difference between life and death for some, and quality of life
for many. As you know, stem cell research is but one area where the
Center is having an impact. In the coming months, you will be hearing
from me about other critical areas where the Center is helping to make a
difference.
I thank you in advance for your interest and continued support.
Sincerely,
Arthur L. Caplan, Ph.D.
An item from the University of Chicago Law Faculty blog:
Martha Nussbaum is working on a book on religion and the Constitution. A portion of the research on the book led to her January 31, 2006 entry into the Chicago's Best Ideas series, entitled "The Roots of Respect: Roger Williams and Religious Fairness." Martha's talk explores Williams's interesting and prescient (although long and dense) writings on the subject, and explains why Williams has a lot to say to those who believe separation of church and state is an idea created by non-religious people. You can listen to the talk and discussion here.
Those interested in Williams, religious freedom, and conscience might also be interested in this paper, "The Tenuous Case for Conscience," that Steve Smith did in connection with a celebration of Williams's 400th birthday. He asks, among other things:
When we reverently invoke "conscience," do we have any idea what we are talking about? Or are we just exploiting a venerable theme for rhetorical purposes without any clear sense of what "conscience" is or why it matters?
I appreciate Rob's typically eloquent op-ed on the conscience-clause debate. I wonder, though: Wouldn't it be just as accurate to characterize the piece as being about "why the movement to pass laws overriding a pharmacist's right of conscience is misguided" (as opposed to, "why the movement to pass laws protecting a pharmacist's right of conscience is misguided")? It is one thing to think, as I take it Rob does, that pluralism on this matter is better than a mandate in either direction. But, if we take it as given (and I think we might as well take it as given) that the clear momentum is in favor of anti-conscience mandates, then I'm not sure that Rob's good points about pluralism, free association, etc., should lead us to oppose -- as a defensive, second-best measure -- laws protecting the right of conscience. Rob?
It seems that a romantic relationship is beneficial not only for the participants, but for the broader society as well. A study by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago finds a link between romantic love and altruistic behavior. Other interesting findings include links between prayer and altruism, and between being raised in a two-parent family and altruism.
Rob
