A new pro-choice, pro-science think tank called the Women's Bioethics Project, has released a report called, "Bioethics and Public Policy: Conservative Dominance in the Current Landscape." I thought to myself: How is that possible? Do conservatives dominate bioethics public policy? Is that like the mythical "conservative" media bias?
After reading the report, I found that Kathryn Hinsch, the founder of the Women's Bioethics Project, makes a strong case. She contends that conservative groups dominate all areas of bioethics debate (i.e. euthanasia, cloning, stem cell research, abortion, reproductive technologies.) She writes, "To date, only extremely conservative and overtly religious groups have devoted substantial resources to affecting bioethics public policy."1 She clearly equates any group that is unequivocally pro-life as "extreme." She observes "at the core of bioethics is the ultimate power struggle for the control of life (and death) and our sense of ourselves as human beings."2 And, in her opinion conservative groups "see bioethics as a way to extend their anti-reproductive freedom, anti-science, pro-religion political agdenda."3 In addition, conservatives "use bioethics as a way to galvanize their base, gear up the troops for battle, divide progressives, and polish their image."4
After several pages of speculating on what drives the conservative agenda, Hinsch finally gets to the real reason that conservatives dominate the bioethics landscape. It is because most conservative groups agree on the idea of human dignity. She writes, [Conservatives] are incredibly adept at tying these [bioethics] issues together in a unified conservative framework based on the concept of 'human dignity.' This defines their position on any given issue and resonates with their audience."5 (Notice human dignity is in quotations as if it is some fictional idea.) Progressive groups on the other hand do not have a common base and therefore tackle each issue separately. One of her key findings says, "what progressive activities there are in the area of bioethics are under-funded, narrowly focused, and lacking in a unified philosophical framework."6
What Hinsch is hinting at, but will not say outright, is the reason they do not have a common base: the moral relativism that makes them progressive. When progressives reject the idea of human dignity, or use it only when it suits their agenda, they lost any common ground they might share on bioethical issues. It is easy to assume that liberals are as cohesive in bioethics issues as conservatives, but they are not. Some women's rights groups, while being pro-abortion, pro-IVF and pro-embryonic stem cell research, are against human cloning because they fear that women will be exploited for their eggs as evidenced by the current scandal over egg procurement in South Korea. Nigel de Cameron from the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network writes, "Women's advocates may not oppose embryonic stem cell research using spare in-vitro embryos, but they are very unhappy about having women super-ovulate so that they can be the egg factories for experimenters, biotech corporations, and wealthy consumers who want their "own personal medical toolkit."7
Pro-environmentalist and pro-animal rights groups are against genetic engineering in plants and animals but not necessarily in humans. Greenpeace says, "We view genetically engineered foods as having the potential for the largest environmental disaster in human history."8 There is no mention of human genetic engineering on the Greenpeace website. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is against the cloning of pets but is silent on the issues of therapeutic and reproductive cloning in humans.
Some progressive groups, like the World Transhumanist Association want cloning and genetic engineering in humans. Their website states, "We support the development of and access to new technologies that enable everyone to enjoy better minds, better bodies and better lives. In other words, we want people to be better than well."9 While others, like the Council for Responsible Genetics are afraid cloning will further widen the gap between the rich who can afford to "upgrade" their children, and the poor who cannot. Their website has a "Genetic Bill of Rights" that states, "All people have the right to have been conceived, gestated, and born without genetic manipulation."10
Some liberal websites like Future Generations, which says it supports "humanitarian eugenics,"11 are for genetic testing, euthanasia and eugenics by abortion, while some realize that this naturally discriminates against the undesirable, like women and the disabled. The Council for Responsible Genetics' Genetic Bill of Rights states, "All people have the right to protection against eugenic measures such as forced sterilization or mandatory screening aimed at aborting or manipulating selected embryos or fetuses."12 Even the pro-choice, pro-reproductive rights Women Bioethics Project's own blog laments the use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis in IVF for sex selection. Sue Trinidad writes on a new study that will be conducted on sex selection in IVF:
Yes, you are reading that right, folks. A team of fertility specialists at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas will be conducting a trial that involves pre-implanation genetic diagnosis (which has only been used, until now, to identify serious disabilities and potentially life-threatening conditions) to find out why people might select one sex over another…. Can it really be that this is a worthwhile research question? And are we really including selective termination of "wrong-sex" embryos as part of an empirical research protocol?… Just in case you thought the no-girl-babies problem was something that only happened in other countries….13
Progressive groups have varying views on reproductive technologies, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning. Hinsch argues that this is what makes them weak. While conservative groups pool resources and work together, progressives tackle each issue separately and do not collaborate because of their lack of consensus. Hinsch points out that "Progressives will need to do more than throw money at the problem: it will require a major rethinking of the issues."14 What does she suggest for progressives to "catch-up" to conservatives? They need to "uncouple the link of bioethics from abortion."15 Hinsch is correct when she writes:
By having a broad framework formulated from a set of agreed-upon conservative values, voters and policy makers are much more likely to "know" where they stand on any given issue and why without much in the way of educational outreach. Also, by framing the issues in terms of "human dignity" -- whether the issue is genetic engineering or end-of-life termination -- it taps into the intensity of the highly explosive abortion debate. Progressives, on the other hand, do not have such a framework and when they do weigh in, it is from a single-issue perspective.16
This report, while clearly for the progressive, should give conservatives hope. According to Hinsch, we have the stronger network. Our core values are consistent. We do not need to ignore the issues surrounding abortion to reach a consensus. Her suggestion for conservatives is to "undermine progressive coalitions by portraying them as divided, confused, and serving special interests. They will be able to do this because many of the emerging issues bring progressive values into conflict (autonomy v. social justice, for example) and will divide potential progressive coalitions."17 She points out "whoever gets there first will frame the debate on these issues and will affect us all for decades to come." She believes the conservatives are winning. I hope she is right.
1 Hinsch, Kathryn, "Bioethics and Public Policy: Conservative Dominance in the Current Landscape," November 2005, p. 1 [Back]
7 Nigel Cameron, "Feminists Team with Pro-lifers, and Other Strange Headlines" [Back]
8 David Holcberg, "The Morality of Genetic Engineering" [Back]
9 World Transhumanist Association [Back]
10 Council for Responsible Genetics [Back]
11 Future Generations website [Back]
12 Council for Responsible Genetics, Genetic Bill of Rights [Back]
13 Sue Trinidad, "Sex selection trial in China USA has been approved," Women Bioethics Project Blog [Back]
14 Kathryn Hinsch, "Bioethics and Public Policy: Conservative Dominance in the Current Landscape," November 2005, p. 4 [Back]