ace...I have no idea what the mission of your little group projects may have been, but we know the Council did not follow the mandate of its mission to offer a variety of views on the complex issues under review.
Its as simple and irrefutable as that.
Dr. Blackburn expressed her concerns (and the concerns of other dissenting Council members) with two reports.
Quote:
We knew that on this originally 18-member (but for most of the past two years a 17-member) Council, as scientists we would be in the minority in our belief of the good to be gained through these and other areas of biomedical research. We were also aware that some others on the Council had strong opposing views. Thus, it was only with the assurances of the Council chairman, Leon Kass of the University of Chicago, and of the President of the United States himself that we were persuaded that our voices would be heard and integrated into the statements of the Council. Furthermore, we felt, and continue to feel, that bioethical issues are important not only to all biologists, but also to society at large, and thus especially worthy of engaging debate and discussion.
Two recently issued reports of the Council, “Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness” (http://bioethics.gov/reports/beyondtherapy/index.html) and “Monitoring Stem Cell Research” (http://bioethics.gov/reports/stemcell/index.html), are therefore of deep concern to us....
....These reports had as their premise the aim of neutrality in the scientific analysis of the issues addressed. But our concern is that some of their contents, as in the few examples outlined above (if you have interestng in reading them, ace), may have ended up distorting the potential of biomedical research and the motivation of some of its researchers. Continuing discussions will form the basis for future decisions on these topics; keeping such discussion open and balanced is of paramount importance.
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perl...l.pbio.0020116
|
It is unethical and dishonest that those concerns will not be part of the permanent reports and records of the Council, but rather had to be expressed externally by a Council member thus reinforcing the FACT that the Council did not live up to its mission.