Rhodes 1st pps 060830.indd

Ethical controversies regarding the control of science and technology, especially emerging biotechnologies, are among the most contentious of current issues under public debate. Cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer (even the terminology is controversial) and stem cell research are hotbutton political issues, with presidential ethics advisors, presidents and exfi rst ladies weighing in, threatening vetoes, or making alliances with strange bedfellows. Every technical advance sets off a new round of discussion and seemingly intractable disagreement. Similar ethical debates complicate public policy decisions regarding the development, regulation and use of genetically modifi ed organisms, gene therapy, and other biological technologies. Research on creating artifi cial cells and artifi cial lifeforms is still too early in its development to have reached a comparable level of public awareness, but these areas will also require that we give careful thought to their ethical implications. Using the term applied ethics for such deliberation is misleading; anyone who has tried to negotiate such practical ethical controversies knows that simply “applying” ethical theory off the shelf is rarely suffi cient. At the very least, resolution of ethical questions caused by advances in science and technology will require close collaboration of both scientists and ethicists. Progress on the controversy about human cloning, for instance, may be possible when scientists, ethicists, and philosophers of science use their relevant expertise to sort through the combination of facts and values that is involved (Pennock, 2001). Progress on these kinds of issues may also be easier when we move from a simplistic, generic question about “the morality of X” to a more fi negrained analysis that frames questions in ways that take into account relevant ethical differences between developing just public policies, recognizing professional responsibilities, and respecting and delimiting the