“Progressive” Bioethics
Bioethics is the application of ethics to life sciences. The debate over this discipline began in the 1970s when conservative and liberal groups conducted the debate between "good science" and "good ethics." The reason for the debate was the impact of human beings on the development of biomedicine and biotechnologies, but also the concepts and values that society had, in previous times, considered indisputable.
In the last decade, bioethics has been at the center of a debate that has become highly political. This has resulted in less debate between liberals and conservatives and more between the founders and those who are now called "progressives."
And who are these people? We are talking about scientists who reject ideological intervention in science. In the specific case of the United States, to have had a progressive president could have made the integration of bioethics more significant, but Obama has taken a rather neutral position in the development of his public policies.
The president has made his pronouncements regarding the lineaments of the National Institutes of Health’s research. The majority of the federal budget will be for the research of induced pluripotent stem cells (known as iPS cells in English). In this manner we don't have to research therapeutic cloning. The difference is huge - the first group mainly comes from a somatic adult cell; the second utilizes stem cells from embryos.
This fact has made Obama out to be the "defender" in the camp of the stem cell researchers. His position is clear: ethics will apply to this investigation. What is not understood with the same clarity is the concept of the "new progressive vision" of bioethics.
The MIT press (an editorial affiliated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) will present a book at the beginning of the year that will perhaps be more explanatory, entitled "Progress in Biothics. Science, Policy, and Politics" (J. Moreno y S. Berger, eds). Supposedly this book will clarify the concept of "progressive bioethics" and its approximations in public politics, biotechnology and religion, among others.
Are we about to see a real change of posture or is this book only about a change in denomination? The themes of bioethics definitely have a strong component of values. When it deals with the issue of embryos, they include real investigations. The book also deals with the protection of human beings and the philosophical questions about the beginning of a human life. We are not only talking about moral considerations, we are talking about public politics that concern the philosophy of the state and its values.
This show of public power is motivated by fundamental questions. First, the importance of biomedicine for health. Second, the evident necessity to not remain stagnant with respect to scientific discovery and its benefits. This scientific development relates to social and economic issues. It will shed new light on the definition of man and the future of humanity.
We need to stay attentive to the development of new positions on scientific advances. This is evident in certain countries such as Israel, where the state extended the moratorium on the investigation of reproductive cloning. Will there be a progressive vision, or will we just fall between liberals and conservatives when we speak of the significance of human life?
In the last decade, bioethics has been at the center of a debate that has become highly political. This has resulted in less debate between liberals and conservatives and more between the founders and those who are now called "progressives."
And who are these people? We are talking about scientists who reject ideological intervention in science. In the specific case of the United States, to have had a progressive president could have made the integration of bioethics more significant, but Obama has taken a rather neutral position in the development of his public policies.
The president has made his pronouncements regarding the lineaments of the National Institutes of Health’s research. The majority of the federal budget will be for the research of induced pluripotent stem cells (known as iPS cells in English). In this manner we don't have to research therapeutic cloning. The difference is huge - the first group mainly comes from a somatic adult cell; the second utilizes stem cells from embryos.
This fact has made Obama out to be the "defender" in the camp of the stem cell researchers. His position is clear: ethics will apply to this investigation. What is not understood with the same clarity is the concept of the "new progressive vision" of bioethics.
The MIT press (an editorial affiliated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) will present a book at the beginning of the year that will perhaps be more explanatory, entitled "Progress in Biothics. Science, Policy, and Politics" (J. Moreno y S. Berger, eds). Supposedly this book will clarify the concept of "progressive bioethics" and its approximations in public politics, biotechnology and religion, among others.
Are we about to see a real change of posture or is this book only about a change in denomination? The themes of bioethics definitely have a strong component of values. When it deals with the issue of embryos, they include real investigations. The book also deals with the protection of human beings and the philosophical questions about the beginning of a human life. We are not only talking about moral considerations, we are talking about public politics that concern the philosophy of the state and its values.
This show of public power is motivated by fundamental questions. First, the importance of biomedicine for health. Second, the evident necessity to not remain stagnant with respect to scientific discovery and its benefits. This scientific development relates to social and economic issues. It will shed new light on the definition of man and the future of humanity.
We need to stay attentive to the development of new positions on scientific advances. This is evident in certain countries such as Israel, where the state extended the moratorium on the investigation of reproductive cloning. Will there be a progressive vision, or will we just fall between liberals and conservatives when we speak of the significance of human life?