This is one of the many colloquies that examines a topic in which I have no expertise, but, as in many of these colloquies, the premises and logic are so flawed that I simply cannot resist posting a response.
As is normal, the Chronicle is attempting to "electronically lynch" yet another seemingly conservative academic. The article certainly appears to look objective; it gives equal space to both critics and supporters of Dr. Kass, and, at the very end, it even goes the extra mile by stating that his parents were "secular, socialist, immigrant Jews from Eastern Europe.” How "enlightened" of the Chronicle to emphasize Dr. Kass's left-of-center non-Christian upbringing! I actually found this statement by the Chronicle to be somewhat offensive.
But, alas, forget about this lame attempt at objectivity and focus instead upon the headline:
"A New Kind of Bioethics: Eschewing the academic mainstream, Bush panel focuses on technology's dangers"
Of course, Dr. Kass MUST be "eschewing the academic mainstream" if he is on a "Bush panel." I think a first-year journalism student could see through the transparency of this headline. It basically says that Dr. Kass's panel is rejected by the academic "mainstream" because it is a "Bush panel."
How accurate is such an assertion? The article published by the Chronicle shows how asinine and infantile this assertion is. The article states that, "More than 170 academic bioethicists signed a letter of protest" concerning recent dismissals of members of Dr. Kass's council. Is this really the "academic mainstream?"
According to the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities—the principal professional organization for bioethicists—the organization is composed of "1,500 individuals, organizations, and institutions interested in bioethics..." (see
http://www.asbh.org) That would mean that about one tenth of the membership signed the letter. That hardly constitutes the "mainstream."
What is most surprising about the Chronicle article is its incompetent reporting. No where does it mention the recent book written by Dr. Kass's council, _Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness_. The recent review of this book on Slate (see
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096815) makes it clear that the work of Dr. Kass's council has been as a balanced as could have reasonably have been expected. I quote this review at length below, which should do more to illustrate the depth of Dr. Kass's views than the one-sided Chronicle article could ever hope to achieve.
"The stated aim of [_Beyond Therapy_] is to produce philosophical reflection, not advice. The report issues no guidelines or policy recommendations, which is why it is an odd target for left versus right debates. Instead, it reads like a scholarly book. _Beyond Therapy_ is about 300 pages in length and is divided into four main sections: "Better Children," "Superior Performance," "Ageless Bodies," and "Happy Souls." The careful philosophical style of the report parodied by the editors of Nature Biotechnology is, admittedly, unlike any government document I have ever read, but I count that as a strong point in its favor. The truly striking thing about _Beyond Therapy_ is how just radically at odds it is with mainstream American culture, right and left alike. The report is skeptical of America's faith in technology, worried about America's radical individualism, alarmed at the transformation of medicine from a profession into a business, and deeply concerned about the role of the market in driving the demand for new medical technologies. _Beyond Therapy_ may not please many bioethicists, but neither will it please the libertarian or the business-conservative wings of the Republican Party. When was the last time you heard a Republican complain, as the council does, that the pharmaceutical industry is expanding diagnostic categories as a way of selling drugs or express concern that it 'can manufacture desire as readily as it can manufacture pills'? As much as it pains me to admit that anything worthwhile could come from a council appointed by the Bush administration, _Beyond Therapy_ is a remarkable document: gracefully written, thoroughly researched, ideologically balanced, and philosophically astute. It will be a benchmark for all future work on the topic."
As a final note, I do not vote Republican or Democrat; indeed, in the past few years I have refused to vote for either party in any election because I have strong reservations about both. Thus, I do not consider myself to be an ideologue of the left or the right:
to
