Jeffrey Kahn Pulls No Punches on Leon Kass
Among the
letters from readers in the Minneapolis Star Tribune is one from Jeff Kahn, director of the Center for Bioethics at University of Minnesota, who writes:
[Columnist Michael Kinsley is] right that Leon Kass is viewed by some as "the secretary of bioethics," but that's the problem. 
Prof. Kass has become more a mouthpiece for the Bush administration than a credible voice for thoughtful analysis of controversial ethical issues ... There are many in bioethics who support far greater public investment in embryonic stem cell research ... [but] It's no surprise that these are not the voices represented on the current President's Council on Bioethics, which Kass chairs ... the blame lies with an administration that won't tolerate, let alone consider, dissenting views on stem cell research policy -- a much bigger problem than the ethical noodling of Leon Kass and his cronies.
comments
A few inches below Eric Cohen copped a few from Art Caplan over his "incoherent" scaremongering over reproductive cloning. Now Jeffrey Kahn asserts that "There are many in bioethics who support far greater public investment in embryonic stem cell research" to clobber Leon Kass. Just for the record, can anyone name any American bioethicists who would oppose human reproductive cloning if it were safe? In other words, bioethicists who believe that it is unethical under any circumstances, not merely imprudent at the moment? Thanks.
- by Michael Cook on May 29, 2005 at 10:50 AM | link
I would. But just for the record, the critical question about whether or not an ethicist would oppose reproductive cloning is not whether they would support a law making the process illegal, but rather whether they would oppose its use if it were legal. I would oppose it in either circumstance and have argued as much over and over. Safety is a stall tactic I agree.
- by Glenn McGee on May 29, 2005 at 1:04 PM | link
Wait a minute, Glenn. You wrote an article with Ian Wilmut in which you both suggested that requests for reproductive cloning be treated as we do adoptions. Doesn't sound like principled moral opposition to me.
- by Wesley J. Smith on Jun 2, 2005 at 4:56 AM | link
Wesley hi. The argument that we made, if I recall correctly, was that the regulation of human cloning should perhaps follow the institutional model of the family courts charged with divorce and adoption decisions. That isn't at all incompatible with my own firm opposition to human cloning. Not everything that is wrong must be banned. I know you agree. The question of whether cloning should be banned is another one entirely, and I like to think that the piece I did with Wilmut remains the most intelligible solution - it draws on the wisdom of Adam Smith, William James, and Friedrich Hayek concerning the formation of decision communities. I may be alone among bioethicists in supporting what was once called "Reagan federalism," but I support it nonetheless - it makes more sense to leave these matters - as a regulatory structure - to the states. Power should stay close to the people, and more so on matters like this that are traditionally handled by the courts.
Anyway, the point is that I have what I'd describe as principled reasons for opposing reproductive cloning, and I'd gladly use them in an argument with my fellow citizens in favor of imposing a ban in my county or my state. But I wouldn't argue for a national ban because like Hayek and other classical liberal scholars I believe that decisions about such matters ought not be made at that level of aggregation.
- by Glenn McGee on Jun 2, 2005 at 5:25 AM | link