GUIDELINES for this forum are intended to promote and maintain it as a conduit for exploring LIBERTARIANISM
PleaseSee http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian That purpose can become swamped by one or more, of the over 700 who are registered to post, 'flooding' the forum with multiple daily 'cut&paste' imports of the entire text of formal articles published elsewhere. Please use the forum to publish YOUR on-topic composition; in which can be included appropriate selected EXCERPTS with reference link (URL) to 'more' content. MoreAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/55509 -Terry Liberty Parker Owner/moderator, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian --- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Medievalizing Biotech Regulation > Francis Fukuyama wants to control your reproductive decisions. > _Ronald Bailey_ (http://www.reason.com/staff/show/133.html) | March 9, 2007 > "We are proposing a new regulatory institution in Washington, DC," said > Francis Fukuyama, professor of political economy at the Johns Hopkins University > School of Advanced International Studies and author of Our Posthuman Future. > "It's been a long time since anyone has done that." > > What needs regulating? Human biotechnology. Fukuyama unveiled his plan for a > new agency at a conference held at the Rayburn House Office building on > Capitol Hill. The blueprint for the new biotech regulatory agency being proposed > by Fukuyama and Swiss technology consultant Franco Furger is laid out in a > 400 page book, _Beyond Bioethics: A Proposal for Modernizing the Regulation of > Human Biotechnologies_ (http://www.biotechgov.org/) . > > Why do we need a new biotech regulatory agency? Because bad things have > happened? Not at all. In fact, Fukuyama wants to put his proposal in play now so > that the denizens of Capitol Hill can simply pull it off the shelf and enact > it into law when some sort of biotech scandal erupts. The proposed agency is > explicitly modeled after the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology > Authority (HEFA). Fukuyama's new agency would not just regulate the safety and > efficacy of new biotechnologies, but also rule on their ethical propriety. > According to Fukuyama, biotechnology is "galloping ahead" and it's time to move > from ethical discussions to regulation and "social control." > > Furger discussed some recent developments to illustrate how biotech is > galloping ahead. For example, a Texas fertility clinic is now offering _embryos > for sale_ (http://www.reason.com/news/show/36844.html) ; researchers have > manufactured _mouse sperm_ > (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/stem-cells/mg19125604.200- stem-cells-turned-into-sperm.html) from stem cells; and others > have inserted human cell nuclei into _rabbit eggs_ > (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article787775.ece) to try to produce stem cells. Furger said > that he was listing these activities, "not to say that they are reproachable. > Some may be acceptable and some not." He asked, "But how do we make that > determination?" > > Fukuyama explained that the new agency would regulate anything having to do > with assisted reproduction techniques (ART). This would include IVF, _ooplasm > transfer_ (http://www.sbivf.com/ivf_cyto.htm) , sex selection either by > pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) or _sperm sorting_ > (http://www.reason.com/news/show/34895.html) . The agency would also regulate research involving > human reproductive tissues including all embryonic stem cell research and > anything dealing with human developmental biology. > > "Biotech has reached point where existing regulators, the Food and Drug > Administration and the National Institutes of Health, can't handle it," declared > Fukuyama.The agency would be guided by a set of ranked ethical principles. > Its first concern would be the well-being and health of children. Second, > ensuring equal access to ART for infertile couples. Third, protecting the > well-being of and health of women. Fourth, promoting therapeutic uses of ART over > enhancement uses. Fifth, making sure that patients and research subjects give > their free informed consent to procedures. And finally, advocating for > regulations to limit the commercialization of human eggs, sperm and embryos. > > Fukuyama would completely ban human reproductive cloning, the creation of > human animal chimeras for the purpose of reproduction, germline genetic > modifications, any procedure that would alter the genetic relationship of parents to > children, and the patenting of human embryos. > > The new agency would regulate research cloning, PGD, sex selection of > embryos, and the commercialization of certain elements of human reproduction such > as the sale of eggs, sperm and embryos. It would consist of a set of > commissioners, appointed by the president and advised by a board consisting of various > stakeholder groups such as patients, ART practitioners, scientific community > and the biotech industry. Fukuyama also introduced a novel set of mechanisms > for consulting with the wider public including deliberative panels and a > consultative college of consisting of randomly selected members of the public > who convene to consider regulatory issues over the internet. > > Instead of inhibiting research and the development of new treatments, the > new agency could spur them on, suggested Fukuyama. For example, he asserted > that Britain is ahead of the United States in human embryonic stem cell research > because of the HFEA's regulations. Fukuyama is just plain wrong about that. > The Guardian _reported_ > (http://www.scenta.co.uk/scenta/features.cfm? cit_id=1568805&FAArea1=widgets.content_view_1) last week, "Excessive bureaucracy > imposed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [is] prohibiting > development in stem cell research and threatening Britain's position as a world > leader in the field." The Guardian quoted stem cell researcher Alison Murdoch, > director of the Newcastle Centre for Life fertility clinic, as saying, "The > way the government has handled the work we do is to regulate it to the point > that it looks like it's got barbed wire around it." > > But what about the larger question: Do we really want a federal agency > making and imposing ethical decisions about human reproduction? Consider the > wretched history of federal and state regulation in this area. In 1873, Congress > passed the Comstock Laws that _outlawed_ > (http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/main/publications/articles_and_r eports/the_war_on_drugs_and_the_war_on_abortion > _some_initial_thoughts_on_the_connections_intersections_and_the_effect s.php) > "every obscene, lewd, or lascivious, and every filthy book, pamphlet, > picture, paper, letter, writing, print, or other publication of an indecent > character, and every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for preventing > conception or producing abortion." The Comstock Laws authorized the U.S. Post > Office to confiscate any publications providing advice on contraception and > condoms shipped through the mail. The first eugenics law was passed in > Indiana in 1907 and eventually laws allowing the forced sterilization of "unfit" > people were _adopted by 30 states_ > (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/021500-02.htm) . Infamously, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld forced sterilization in > the case of _Buck v. Bell_ > (http://www.law.du.edu/russell/lh/alh/docs/buckvbell.html) in 1927. By the 1960s, some 66,000 Americans had been forcibly > neutered. > > In the last half of the 20th century, the U.S. Supreme Court finally stepped > in to overrule state interference in the reproductive decisions of > Americans. In 1965, the Court found unconstitutional the Connecticut law prohibiting > use of birth control by married couples in _Griswold v. Connecticut_ > (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html ) . In 1967, the > Court ruled in _Loving v. Virginia_ (http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp) that > the laws in 16 states banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional. In > 1972, the Court struck down in the case of _Eisenstadt v. Baird_ > (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl? navby=CASE&court=US&vol=405&page=438) > a Massachusetts law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives to unmarried > people. And of course, the Supreme Court found prohibitions on abortion > unconstitutional in 1973 in _Roe v. Wade_ (http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/) . > > The HFEA, the model for Fukuyama's new biotech regulatory agency, has > similarly interfered with the reproductive decisions of British people. The HFEA > has told couples that they could _not select the sex_ > (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.02/biotech.html) of embryos to be implanted. Even now the > parents wanting to use PGD to insure that their children will not be burdened > with an inherited genetic disease must _apply for permission_ > (http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/POOLED/ARTICLES/BF_NEWSART/VIEW.ASP ?Q=BF_NEWSART_185290) > from the HFEA. And the HFEA has _banned_ > (http://www.hfea.gov.uk/cps/rde/xchg/SID-3F57D79B- F047022A/hfea/hs.xsl/1491.html) paying women for providing eggs > to be used in research. > > Fukuyama's agency would rule not only on safety and efficacy but on moral > questions surrounding human reproduction. Some possible techniques are > objectionable and should be banned, e.g., any attempt to create a half-human > half-chimp baby. On the other hand, Fukuyama wants to ban ever allowing parents to > safely choose genes that would tend to give their children healthier immune > systems, stronger bodies and cleverer brains. > > It turns out that the proposed agency is largely just a vehicle for Fukuyama > to impose his moral choices on other people. What Fukuyama is proposing is a > step backward to the bad old days in which strangers get to vote on what > kind of children their fellow citizens will be allowed to bring into the world. > A government bureaucracy, rather than parents, would get to make eugenic > decisions. As the sorry history of attempts to regulate human reproduction shows, > the truly moral thing to do is fiercely resist this proposal. > > _Ronald Bailey_ (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) is Reason's science > correspondent. His book _Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the > Biotech Revolution_ (http://www.reason.com/lb/) is now available from Prometheus > Books. > Send this article to: > * _Del.icio.us_ > (http://del.icio.us/post? url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/119060.html&title=Medievalizing+Bi otech+Regulation) > * _Digg_ > (http://digg.com/submit? phase=2&url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/119060.html&title=Medieval izing+Biotech+Regulation) > * _Liberty Loop_ > (http://www.libertyloop.com/add_story.php? story_url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/119060.html) > * _Reddit_ > (http://reddit.com/submit? url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/119060.html&title=Medievalizing+Bi otech+Regulation) > > Try Reason's award-winning print edition _today_ > (https://www.kable.com/pub/anxx/newsubs.asp?src=V6ATXT) ! Your first issue is FREE if you are not > completely satisfied. > * _Printer Friendly_ (http://www.reason.com/news/printer/119060.html) > * _Send to a Friend_ > (http://www.reason.com/news/sendtofriend/119060.html) > > > > > > > More Articles by _Ronald Bailey_ (http://www.reason.com/staff/show/133.html) > * _Welcome to Biotech Park_ > (http://www.reason.com/news/show/119013.html) > Michael Crichton's latest novel is readable, daring, and flawed. (3/7) > * _Whose Life Is It Anyway?_ > (http://www.reason.com/news/show/118930.html) > The FDA versus dying cancer patients. (3/2) > * _Benign Cells?_ (http://www.reason.com/news/show/118454.html) > Cancer and Mobile Phones (3/1) > > > > Related Stories (_Biotechnology_ (http://www.reason.com/topics/topic/128) ) > * _Welcome to Biotech Park_ > (http://www.reason.com/news/show/119013.html) > Michael Crichton's latest novel is readable, daring, and flawed. Ronald > Bailey (3/7) > * _Their Bodies, Our Selves_ > (http://www.reason.com/news/show/117046.html) > Who owns your body? Hint: It's not you. Kerry Howley (12/5) > * _Can We Ever Spend Too Much on Biomedical Research?_ > (http://www.reason.com/news/show/36942.html) > The answer depends on whom you're asking. Ronald Bailey (10/6) > > > Latest Articles on Reason Online > * _"It's Our Job to Stop That Dream"_ > (http://www.reason.com/news/show/119089.html) > The endless, futile work of the Border Patrol Malia Politzer (3/13) > * _Florida's Forgotten Rebels_ > (http://www.reason.com/news/show/119079.html) > Rediscovering the most successful slave revolt in American history Amy > Sturgis (3/12) > * _Jihadis in the Intertubes_ > (http://www.reason.com/news/show/119069.html) > The futility of propaganda in the age of information Jeff Taylor (3/12) > * _Reason Happy Hour, March 8 2007_ > (http://www.reason.com/news/show/119057.html) > And you were there! (3/9) > * _Give Me Liberty or Give Me X_ > (http://www.reason.com/news/show/119044.html) > Is author Brian Doherty the missing link between the Libertarian Party and > Burning Man? (3/9) > * _The Imaginary Adventures of the U.S. Senate_ > (http://www.reason.com/news/show/119028.html) > Sorting fact from fiction in the Congressional Record Jesse Walker (3/8) > > > LATEST POSTS ON REASON'S HIT & RUN > * _Jeff Sessions' Crack Cocaine Solution_ > (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119115.html) > Jacob Sullum (3/13 6:23pm) > * _Poor Little Rich Man_ (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119111.html) > Katherine Mangu-Ward (3/13 6:06pm) > * _Abortions For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others_ > (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119110.html) > David Weigel (3/13 5:40pm) > * _Paul Defeats Huckabee!_ > (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119109.html) > David Weigel (3/13 4:42pm) > * _Everything is Obviously Perfect in New Mexico When ..._ > (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119108.html) > Ronald Bailey (3/13 4:37pm) > * _Diplomatic Impunity_ (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119107.html) > David Weigel (3/13 3:08pm) > * _How Much Music is Enough?_ > (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119105.html) > Brian Doherty (3/13 2:59pm) > * _Balls to the Hall_ (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119104.html) > David Weigel (3/13 1:35pm) > * _Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and Don't Ever Apologize. It's a Sign of > Weakness[*]_ (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119101.html) > Nick Gillespie (3/13 12:55pm > > > > > > > <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free > email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at > http://www.aol.com. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
