- Being tempted to "over-sell" experimental results, to promise more than can be delivered (e.g., stem cells)
- Providing adequate protection against unjustified discrimination regarding access to innovative tests, devices, treatments, and other products
- Determining how to provide adequate, accurate, and complete interpretation of complex scientific data to the public (e.g., DTC genetic testing)
- Being tempted to overstate the ability to guarantee "privacy" of sensitive, personal information (e.g., who owns genetic data? Should genetic data become commercially available?)
- Determining the appropriate balance between bioscience innovation and consumer protection (e.g., DTC genetic testing; stem cells)
As I conclude, I want to acknowledge a perhaps somewhat annoying trait of ethicists—we often leave you with more questions than answers. That's our job. Our job actually is not to worry for you but to point to things we all ought to worry about and to offer ways to help you worry responsibly about them. The ethics questions raised by 21st century bioscience are tough. Every one of the inevitable dilemmas I've suggested to you today will cause us sleepless nights. If you take nothing else away from my talk today, take this: that we need you in the lab, in the marketplace, in the board room, and especially in the public square—not only because you are becoming confident and competent scientists but also because you will help us think through the complex questions raised by genetic medicine, stem cells, bioprocessing, molecular diagnostics, nanotechnology, pharmaceutical discovery, bioscience business, and a host of advances and quandaries that we cannot even imagine today. We will rely on you as scientists to work with us on the never-ending project of bioethics, where the windows and doors remain open, and we are reminded never to close ourselves off to sensory impulses of eyes and ears alert toward context, change, and justice.
Margaret R. McClean
Have we stopped at the question stage and given up on true science, that goes to the limit for the answer?
I believe there is a grand theory, that theory is very heated in fact there are heated arguments to all aspects of the systemic reasoning so and therefore the case Taurus v. Social Security Administration, Supreme Court case #13-5480 was in Conference, today.
Yesterday I was attacked on the street, knocked down and today a bike police officer seemed to direct assets on the street to inhibit my movements. Bioscience information seems to be in the forefront of every area of human society, from banking to education and all have an opinion.
In therapy circle or service delivery of mental health, the assessments most interesting had a form and function purpose at the base. Meaning, is the functioning of the individual, the most important factor. For society that means a health report card, or the all of everybody imposing a selfish will that impeeds change and good will.
No, I think that is dangerous and has been or become an all-out war of influence besides real thinking or the business of thinking, for the result.
Beyond the discussion stage, beyond violence.
Beyond the 30th of September to the decision.
