Bioethics critique in print, patent controversy on the radio
yalepatents.org is on temporary hiatus while I finish my dissertation, but I thought I’d share some relevant sources of procrastination from the past few weeks. First of all, On Point, the news program from WBUR-Boston, hosted a discussion on gene patenting and the Myriad/BRCA case. Tom Ashbrook and his guests hold an accessible discussion, providing a nice starting point for those interested in gene patenting and biotech industry. Notably, Chris Hansen of the ACLU defends his organization’s side in the case, arguing that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs will not hinder biotech patents, but will promote competition and innovation in the industry.
Getting away from the economic immediacy of biotech intellectual property, some recent literature begs the question: what is professional bioethics good for? Some of the recent discussion has been prompted by a new book, Observing Bioethics, by Renee C. Fox and Judith P. Swazey. Though I look forward to reading it as soon as possible, Sally Satel provides a provocative review in The New Republic. Satel, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has written that the political and professional wing of the bioethics movement (in government and on hospital staffs) has distracted attention from its academic soul, transforming a philosophical field into an activist one.
Arriving as populist movements battle healthcare reform, this critique of bioethics is quite timely. However, the anti-bioethics position conveniently, and attractively, avoids anti-elitism. Satel argues in a recent essay from the Hoover Institution that bioethicists simply don’t have an expert advantage over average citizens the way geologists do in the climate change debate. Rather, when they participate in the political discussion or on hospital review boards, “their value is mainly cosmetic or bureaucratic”.
