RESUMEN
Over the course of six years and more than two dozen meetings, members of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues learned so many things: about emerging science; technological challenges; citizen engagement; the public's, experts', and our own understandings and misperceptions; and even the nature of our own most cherished values. Our commission's commitment to democratic deliberation began deliberatively, when we decided (in the summer of 2010) upon basic principles to guide our first report. At the time, Craig Venter had just announced that he had used techniques of synthetic biology to "create life," albeit the most elementary form of life, from nonliving building blocks. Headlines alternated between applauding Venter for creating life and accusing him of playing God. It was one of those all-too-frequent instances where sound-bite democracy was headed toward shedding more heat and fear than light and understanding. The commission was asked to take synthetic biology under review and make recommendations to President Obama on how to proceed. We saw the need to question the most salient facts of the matter: what were the fundamental values at stake in this kind of discovery?
Asunto(s)
Discusiones Bioéticas , Bioética , Comités de Ética/organización & administración , Participación de la Comunidad , Experimentación Humana/ética , Humanos , Política , Política Pública , Estados Unidos , Vacunación/éticaRESUMEN
From accessible and affordable health care to old or new reproductive technologies, human or animal research, and beyond, the justice and well-being of our society depends on the ability of key groups-such as scientists and health care providers-along with members of the public to identify the key issues, articulate their values and concerns, deliberate openly and respectfully, and together find the most defensible ways forward. The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues and The Hastings Center are committed to improving the ethical literacy of the American public in the domain of bioethics. But what are the best educational practices to spur and support these sorts of societal conversations? And where are the greatest gaps in our collective knowledge of how best to inspire and increase moral understanding, analytical thinking in the moral domain, and professional integrity?
