A former member of President Obama's transition team; a professor of medical ethics and health policy, of history and sociology of science, and of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania; a national associate of the National Research Council; and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C., Jonathan Moreno wears many hats. His most recent project, the new book The Body Politic, explores how bioethical issues -- stem cells, genetics -- have become a part of our political discourse.
Here, Moreno discusses how neuroscience and globalization are both affecting his chosen field; the problem with medical schools across the U.S. backing off on their commitment to bioethics; and why he's trying to integrate bioethics with the history of ideas, technology, and public affairs.
What do you say when people ask you, "What do you do?"
My short answer is that I'm a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. The longer and more descriptive answer is hard because, intellectually speaking, I'm a mutt. I'm trained as a philosopher but I live in academic departments of medical ethics and of history and sociology of science. Professionally, I'm mainly seen as a bioethicist but what I've been trying to do for years is integrate bioethics with the history of ideas, technology, and public affairs. So, when people ask me, I say that I teach, write, and do research at the intersection of bioethics and policy with a strong sense of the American cultural context.
What new idea or innovation is having the most significant impact on the bioethics world?
I'd suggest that there are two: globalization and neuroscience. The preoccupation with globalization has clearly affected my own work. In my new book, The Body Politic, I argue that the battle for control over the power of experimental biology is partly shaped by the fact that science is a globally networked enterprise of scientists and their sponsors. In the new paperback version of my 2006 book, Mind Wars, I'm reviewing the way that the global war on terrorism has influenced the growth of research on the brain. Right now, I'm a senior adviser to the president's bioethics commission, which has been digging up the facts about the venereal disease experiments in Guatemala in the late 1940s. That commission report is being followed by an assessment of the international protections for human research subjects today. Globalization pushes us to think more about justice and fairness, which have been concerns more typical of non-U.S. bioethicists.
The other area that is having a big impact on bioethics is neuroscience, which has undergone remarkable growth by just about any measure over the last 15 years. One of the keys has been the advent of new imaging devices that make it possible to do experiments with healthy persons rather than during neurosurgery. Another is invasive implants that can alleviate distressing symptoms of brain disorders like Parkinson's. "Neuroethicists" even have their own professional organization in which I am active. I'm especially interested in the national security implications of cognitive enhancements that might be developed, though I think we're far from some of the science fiction scenarios about "super soldiers" and the like. I'm sure we're in for some surprises along the way.
|Temple Grandin, Animal Scientist|
|Sandy Rosenthal, Founder of Levees.org|
|Pierre-Yves Cousteau, Conservationist|
|Fred Kent, Leader in Revitalizing City Spaces|
What's something that most people just don't understand about your area of expertise?
Bioethicists are caught in an interesting dilemma. Some doctors and medical scientists tend to see us as cops who just say no to important experiments. Others see us as co-opted by the medical and science establishment. I see the task for academic bioethicists as inherently a critical one, as in but not of the establishment. But we also have a responsibility to explain the rationale for a particular treatment or study when we think it's justified, even if the explanation doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. I don't know that there's any way to avoid this dilemma but as long as we have critics on both sides I'd say we're doing our job.
What's an emerging trend that you think will shake up the bioethics world?
That's exactly the topic of The Body Politic: Bioethical issues that were the province of academic discourse since the 1970s are now permanently part of the political discourse, which I call the new biopolitics. The most obvious example is the way that the embryonic stem cell debate became an issue in three presidential campaigns. Already we've seen a little dustup among the Republican presidential candidates about science. These controversies are often related to but distinct from abortion politics because they involve sophisticated new ways of manipulating cells and genes, raising the question of how far experimental biology should go.