The Speculist

Blackburn and Rowley Criticize Bioethics Council

Our friend Reason at Fightaging.org pointed out this article: "President's Panel Skewed Facts, 2 Scientists Say."

They [Elizabeth Blackburn and Janet Rowley] said the council's last report, "Monitoring Stem Cell Research," did not make clear that a wave of recent scientific research has cast doubt on the potential of adult stem cells -- a type of cell that Bush held up as a promising alternative when he announced his restrictions on the use of embryonic cells.

And, according to Blackburn and Rowley, the council's first report presented a skewed version of what motivates aging research.

[T]he title of Chapter 4 of the ["Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness”] report, “Ageless Bodies,” implies that immortality is the goal of this [age related] research... and implies that, by seeking to maintain and extend “youth,” research into aging, including stem cell research, is predominantly to serve vanity. Also, without presenting scientific or reliable evidence, the report presents the opinion that research into prolonging healthy life may result in a lifetime obsession with immortality. Hence, this chapter in the report falls short of explaining the serious challenge of preventing and curing age-related disease to extend health—very different from attempting immortality.

The title of the council's report "Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness" raises this question: What business is it of the President or his council to question the motivations of scientists involved in age related research? If we are really free to "pursue happiness" why should the President feel it's his responsibility to discourage research that is motivated by "vanity?" The President should limit his inquiry to issues of feasibility and the effects of such breakthroughs on society.

…the report repeatedly emphasizes a “profound and mysterious” link between longevity and fertility, thereby leaving the reader with the distinct but erroneous impression that anything done to extend healthy life will be traded for decreased fertility, despite the fact that current scientific literature, which was made available for inclusion in the report, shows a lack of any necessary mechanistic linkage of the two.

Aside from the fact that this fertility/longevity link sounds more like superstition than science, is the Bush administration really comfortable dictating policy on issues of fertility?

The Blackburn/Rowley critique was published by the journal PLoS Biology.

The two bioethics council reports are published here:

• Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness

• Monitoring Stem Cell Research

Posted by Stephen Gordon at March 8, 2004 05:15 AM | TrackBack