Reason as our guide

The Union of Concerned Scientists recently released a report, "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science" (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/report.html), criticizing the Bush administration's willingness to ignore scientific conclusions in the interests of advancing a political agenda. The report, which was signed by over 60 prominent scientists prior to its release on February 17, 2004, questions the integrity and independence of several scientific advisory committees. By law, such committees must be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee." (Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2, Section 5(b)2 and 3)

In an essay published today in PLoS Biology, two members of the President's Council on Bioethics, Elizabeth Blackburn of the University of California, San Francisco, and Janet Rowley of the University of Chicago, outline their concerns about two recent reports issued by 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)--and about the process that generated these reports.

The first report deals with, among other issues, current research in fertility and aging, and with related advances in biotechnology that could potentially cure genetic diseases or promote longevity. The second report concentrates on stem cell research and governmental funding of this research.

Blackburn's and Rowley's criticisms center on the reports' selective use of science to support what they describe as an ideologically conservative political agenda. The first report raises the specter of "designer babies" and criticizes aging studies as focusing entirely on the desire for immortality. Blackburn and Rowley suggest that these characterizations misrepresent both the current science as well as the diversity of scientific opinion on the research. The second report promotes adult stem cell research while minimizing the limitations of that research, suggesting that research into embryonic stem cells is unnecessary. Blackburn and Rowley again contend that such a report should have presented the entire breadth of scientific research into stem cells and the full range of scientific opinions.

Blackburn and Rowley conclude, "Continuing discussion will form the basis for future decisions on these topics; keeping such discussion open and balanced is of paramount importance."

On February 27, 2004, Blackburn, an outspoken critic of the reports even before this essay, along with William F. May, a retired professor of ethics at Southern Methodist University, were dismissed from the President's Council on Bioethics by White House directive.

### Citation: Blackburn E, Rowley J (2004) Reason as our guide. PLoS Biol 2(4): e116 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020116

Link: http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020116

PLEASE MENTION PLoS BIOLOGY (www.plosbiology.org) AS THE SOURCE FOR THIS ARTICLE. THANK YOU.

All works published in PLoS Biology are open access. Everything is immediately available without cost to anyone, anywhere--to read, download, redistribute, include in databases, and otherwise use--subject only to the condition that the original authorship is properly attributed. Copyright is retained by the author. The Public Library of Science uses the Creative Commons Attribution License.

---

---