Related articles and links |  1 of 3

For years, some of us have been saying that the issues raised by advances in biotechnology will dominate the 21st century—not just because new technology is always fascinating, but also because they will become the key issues in our culture and our politics. Think of the culture war over abortion, and then think much, much bigger. We will move from taking human life to making and finally faking human life—by design.

The cloning/stem-cell debates have been a forerunner of that enlarged culture war. Yet it's important to make some things clear. Those of us who would be seen as "social conservatives" are not Luddites. We are not opposed to technology. We may be more skeptical than some as to its benefits or its harmlessness, because we tend to take a Judeo-Christian view of human nature. It is flawed; humans can do wonderful things, but they can also do incredibly evil things, and new technology always gives us the power to do more than we could have before. Furthermore, because we are flawed and finite, our technologies are flawed. Space shuttles explode. Microsoft Windows crashes. My PDA rearranged my schedule one day. We all have our own stories.

At a conference in Washington recently, the Center for American Progress made a push for "progressive" bioethics and against "bioconservatives." This is curious, because one of the most striking facts of our time is that just as economic and social "conservatives" have disagreed on key biopolicy issues, so also "progressives" are thoroughly divided. Many of them side with "conservatives" on a wide range of bioethics issues, from cloning to germline (inheritable) changes to the need for reform in the patenting of human genes.

Part of the problem lies with BIO, the trade group of the biotechnology industry. Many of their efforts are estimable: Biotech will lead to cures for many diseases, and we will welcome them. But the organization, which brought together nearly 20,000 people at a conference in Chicago this April, has for obscure reasons decided to take sides in the great debate about embryonic stem-cell research and cloning.

There are many reasons why their decision is strange. For one thing, whatever hype we may read in the press, the private investment in embryonic stem-cell research is tiny, and stem cells do not feature on standard lists of "10 most promising bio developments." Moreover, Pharma—the far larger group that represents drug manufacturers—has deliberately stayed out of the debate and takes no official line on the issue.

A recent Chicago Tribune article looked at the role of Jim Greenwood, the former congressman who was an aggressive supporter of cloning and embryonic stem-cell research when he was in the House and now runs BIO.

In his $650,000-a-year job Greenwood is as dogged in carrying out BIO's mission as he was for 12 years in the U.S. House representing Philadelphia's north suburbs.

Greenwood is unafraid to talk about BIO's support of embryonic stem-cell research, an issue so controversial that it could be pivotal in deciding close congressional races at a time when some political observers believe Republicans could lose control of the House or Senate.

"We're for it," Greenwood said of BIO's support of embryonic stem-cell research. "We pull no punches."

In contrast, the much larger drug lobby, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, which includes the world's largest drugmakers as members, said it "does not have a position on stem-cell research and is not actively engaged on the issue."

next page... |  1 of 3

April (Web-only) 2006, Vol. 50