Are Christians Losing Bioethics
to Corporate Whores and Athiests?
He says Christians don't get much attention in bioethics anymore. It is hard to disagree with the claim he 
makes that the dominant views in evidence in bioethics these days are secular. Most bioethics-oriented publications, and those with the most impact in the scientific and medical professions, are undeniably written within the "secular" discourse of bioethics - that is, are written without drawing in a significant way upon theology, or relying on justifications based on God or a Judeo-Christian faith tradition in particular.
Theology and religion both played defining roles in bioethics' origins. "Early" bioethics of the 1970s focused on the "big picture" of environmental and health issues - and there was less focus on esoterica. Theological bioethicists engaged in dialog about big questions like whether or not technology is moving faster than medicine in general, and developed a rich literature about "playing God," to name just two examples. Religious bioethics brought hospital ethics committees into existence. Theologian ethicists and in particular (in the U.S.) scholars of Christian and of Jewish ethics framed bioethics for close to a decade and used it to shape a new and vigorous debate about ethics in society and ethics in technology.
What happened to religious bioethics?
Well, according to Cameron, Caplan happened. Cameron writes:
Arthur Caplan is the quintessential face of contemporary bioethics. Yet he does not in any way represent the American people. How did bioethics get so out of whack with the people? How did it switch from a Hippocratic focus on the sanctity of life to a public relations department for whatever the biotech industry wants to do next? ... [The] central problem, of course, is that we walked out. There is no question that a chief agent of secularization in American culture has been "conservative" Christians.Tough love from Nigel: Caplan is a charming
The problem with Dr. Cameron's argument isn't that he's wrong on the sociology: the best accounts of the changes in bioethics, identified in particular in books by Tina Stevens, Al Jonsen and Jennifer K. Walker, really do show that there was a kind of withdrawal by theology scholars from bioethics, just as bioethics would eventually "move out" in large part from philosophy departments. No question either that bioethics has begun to look "secular" in the sense that most bioethics scholars, like most Americans, do not hold Cameron's view that embryonic stem cell research is murder destroys human life (ed note - revised per Dr. Cameron's comment), that Terri Schiavo should have been kept alive indefinitely, and that human nature is an essential, unchanging thing given by God to be preserved unaltered by human stewards.
But what is really troubling about his argument is that, like Carl Elliot, Cameron claims that secular bioethics is inherently instrumentalist and at the utter disposal of pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology. Like Elliot he presents no substantial evidence of this, and like Elliot his is a claim that turns the goal of Caplan and others of interacting with the public into a sign of (secular) evangelism on behalf of big Pharma.
It is troubling because it is incredibly hypocritical. There is superficial irony in Cameron's clever but incredibly unscholarly bashing "the likes of Caplan" because he and his wannabes aren't "profound Christian thinkers" like Paul Ramsey. Here is Dr. Cameron, after all, writing in some "insiders" website on behalf of "moral seriousness" and careful theology. It's not credible. Nigel Cameron - on behalf of pro-life bioethics scholars in his sway - isn't complaining that the serious theologians have left the bioethics building. He isn't complaining that there isn't enough attention to questions about religion in bioethics. He's complaining that the right-to-life movement doesn't have a Washington think-tank yet, that it doesn't get enough television time, and that it isn't taken seriously because it uses abortion language and gets labeled as the "religious right." If you don't believe me, check out Cameron's web page, which points to his own serious and scholarly engagement with Nightline, Frontline, CNN and the BBC. Nothing wrong with that, obviously, but it does rather put a kink in the whole "naughty secularists chase television" argument.
We do need more energy in theological bioethics. More religion departments hiring Ph.D. trained bioethics scholars with theology backgrounds. More bioethics centers seeking out, hiring and promoting theologians in their midst. More representation of theologians in bioethics societies and panels. But Nigel Cameron is not asking for H. Richard Niebuhr. Real scholars of theology are out there - many have trained a whole generation of smart religionists who write about bioethics - Karen Lebaqz at Pacific School of Religion comes to mind. James Gustafson at Emory. But guess what: many of them aren't conservative. Many of them wouldn't share the view that secularism in bioethics is an evil, or even that it took things "off the religious track." Many of the leading religious bioethicists, for example, took issue with the Catholic establishment of Schiavo, like Prof. John Paris, SJ. I doubt seriously that the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity will be making a hire like John Paris.
When Nigel Cameron says that Christians are losing bioethics, it is a call to arms. He's smart, and he leads a movement that is on the fast track to allying with the neoconservatives (led by Kass) and the purists (led by Elliot). He'll get his think tank - in fact you could argue that Kass' big booster, the American Enterprise Institute, is well on the way to playing that role. And check out the awfully slick and relatively new right wing bioethics website: bioethics dot com, as well as their journal Ethics & Medicine: A Christian Perspective. At some point the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, Trinity International's masters program, the Kass acolytes on the Kass Council, their neocon bioethics journal New Atlantis, and perhaps even the "evil Pharma is buying bioethics" acolytes of Carl Elliot are going to figure out that the enemy of their enemy is their friend. And on that day the pure of soul will take over bioethics in the United States.
But that day won't be a victory for theology. It will be a victory for "old time religion."
- Wannabe [rev 8/13 10:45P]
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
Callahan and others have worried quite rightly that bioethics is becoming a handmaiden of industry. As for Christians getting into the fray, why not? Or, based on the continuing sneering tone on this blog, is bioethics really not a discourse but increasingly an ideology that has evolved into a social movement? You can't have it both ways. Either all perspectives are welcomed, or bioethics is a closed sytem where disagreements are over how to apply generally agreed upon values and beliefs. And it is overtly political because, like all social movements, it wants its beliefs to become the dominant approach taken by society. I know which I believe is true.
- by Wesley J. Smith on Aug 13, 2005 at 11:36 PM | link
Hey it's great - more Christians, more theologians, more representatives of politics. My view is just that we ought to be honest about who we are and what we ask for (he sneers). All perspectives are welcome - the neocons are the ones who won't write in bioethics journals, practically have to be bribed to come to the ASBH, and are increasingly trying to create overtly partisan and non-ecumenical journals, graduate programs, and official bodies. Harold Shapiro campaigning for stem cell research while head of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission? That would never have happened. Leon Kass meanwhile practically campaigned for the President in the Washington Post while serving as Chair of the Bush equivalent. Fear of other views? That's a right wing trait, not one of contemporary "secular" bioethics. I hope (and pray?) that more Cameron (as Kass) acolytes deign to come to ASBH this year.
- by ed on Aug 13, 2005 at 11:55 PM | link
The problem is more one of two understandings.
Coming from a similar "worldview" (and as one of his students at Trinity), I read the op-ed (which is shorter or no longer than the blog post) and saw more criticism of Christians than of secularists. He accuses the Christians and conserviatives of abandoning or ignoring the field. (and I've seen it in the medical associations - the conservatives are in the majority if conversations over lunch are any clue, but they're too busy running private practices and back down when confronted by "controversial" issues.)
The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a good idea, though. That's why Dr. Cameron built the coalition that is now the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future.
http://www.thehumanfuture.org/
And why I'm trying (not quite in sync with this call from Cameron) to form an association of prolife physicians and scientists that don't feel that they fit in religious organizations.
- by Beverly on Aug 14, 2005 at 4:51 AM | link
So, when was the last time, say, a pro lifer was given a tenured professorship in bioethics at a non Christian university? When was the last time one was asked to present as ASBH in other than a token way? And don't say Kass because I don't know what he thinks about abortion. People who hold the world view of Nigel Cameron represent a large plurality of the country. They come nowhere near to being proportionately represented by the "leading bioethicists" as one amicus brief modestly called about 40 of them in the Schiavo case. And by the tone of this blog, why would they dream that their views would be given a respectful hearing? They apparently know where they are not wanted. And where others think that they are smarter and better than they are.
- by Wesley J. Smith on Aug 14, 2005 at 5:29 AM | link
As for the issue of tone: Mr. Smith's comments also have a tone, and his website also speaks volumes about 'where others think they are smarter and better than they are.' But who am I to say? I've never been on CNN.
To me, the conflict about Christian versus secular is ultimately about the power to shape society. The suggestion that Christian views in this country have been excluded from powerful domains of life -- with an evangelical President at the helm -- is laughable. Bioethics seems more like an island of relative secularism, in a swelling ocean of faith-based influence in the US. What we could be seeing is the attempt -- backed up by a good deal of money -- to take over two resistant areas of secularism: the university (David Horowitz is working tirelessly on this one) and bioethics.
- by Sam I am on Aug 14, 2005 at 4:11 PM | link
From what I have seen, almost all of the money is on the secularists' sides of bioethics, biotech, academia, etc., etc. Secularism is important. Indeed, my own work is exclusively secularly-based. But people whose values and philosophy are grounded in faith should not be excluded from the ivory tower or the public square. By the way: David Horowitz is also a secularist.
- by Wesley J. Smith on Aug 14, 2005 at 7:35 PM | link
In my opinion, it is perhaps hard to attach figures to the financial support behind certain positions in bioethics, but to me the latest flashpoint (the Schiavo affair) exposed how much money and political clout could be brought together by 'pro-life' groups. Those groups are not supported by bake-sales alone.
If you say that secularists are in the pockets of big pharma and biotech firms, well that's money, but that is also a sweeping generalization. Secularists can (and should) be contrarians, as far as those monied interests go.
If Horowitz is a secularist, that's good to know -- that shows again the plurality of views within 'secularism'. It is easy enough to confuse him with right-wing conservatives, when his views of the academy pave the way for intelligent design in the curriculum, and when he tries to get into bed (so to speak) with religous conservatives in condemning homosexuality.
- by Sam I am on Aug 14, 2005 at 9:57 PM | link
From Nigel Cameron
I do want to express my appreciation for Glenn McGee's generally fair presentation of the argument of my commentary, and offer some quick follow-up comments for the benefit of those who may be unfamiliar with the context of your observations in my work.
Like you, Glenn, I write a lot, and I am interested that you should have picked up on this particular item, since it was a popular piece, written for a religious audience (though it has been re-used in other fora), that basically berates conservative protestants for their failure to engage proportionately and seriously in the development of bioethics, which has led to their being grossly under-represented in professional bioethics discourse, to the disadvantage of their own view, and - as you generously note - to the impoverishment of the bioethics community. As your blog observes, this is hardly a new argument; indeed, I make it in another and appropriately scholarly form in my article on Christianity in the new edition of the Encyclopedia of Bioethics.
As you also note, there are strong consonances between the distinctive concerns of conservative protestants and various other voices in and around bioethics, including many Roman Catholics. Moreover (and this is where it gets really interesting), on crucial emerging issues (such as "therapeutic cloning," now quite the shibboleth of liberal American bio-opinion, and other emerging tendencies toward the commodification of human nature), mainline protestants tend to agree also, as well as pro-choice feminists, environmentalists, and others from the progressive side of the spectrum (viz., the fascinating and little-known opposition to California's Prop. 71, the rebuttal to which was signed by three pro-choice feminists). This is all a lot more obvious in the international context, where (though this was barely reported in the US) history was made in March of this year by the vote of the United Nations General Assembly of almost 3-1 in favor of the UN Declaration on Human Cloning, which called on all nations to ban all forms of human cloning. President Bush personally appealed to the UNGA to pass such a ban, which was chiefly opposed by the UK though brought Germany, Australia, and the US together with much of the developing world as well as traditionally "Catholic" nations - which would have made quite a story in the New York Times had it not challenged the tired assumption that the "religious right" is nuts and that all sane opinion is on the other side (by contrast, USA Today recently gave a whole front page to the large-scale collaboration between religious conservatives and progressives on issues as diverse as penal reform, sex trafficking, and peace in the Sudan) . The recent passage of Canada's comprehensive ART law, which also makes "therapeutic cloning" an offence, is another case in point (clone embryos for research in Canada - and France, and Germany, and Australia, and Switzerland, and Norway . . . and you will not be in the running for a Nobel, you will do jail time). That is: the "conservative Christian" agenda has a good deal more in common with wider opinion on emerging issues in biopolicy than many commentators realize, and it is by no means confined to people like my esteemed friend Leon Kass but is spread across the waterfront of conscience among those who value human nature and seek to welcome new technology and at the same time to maintain the essential integrity of humankind.
But one could go on. Just for the record, and pace your comments, I have never stated that Terri Schiavo should have had her life extended "indefinitely," and I have never to my knowledge described the destruction of embryonic human life as "murder" (though it is undoubtedly the destruction of embryonic human life). And in at least one of the versions of your blog (I have noted two different sets of changes in the few hours I have checked it; this text does seem to have remarkable plasticity) you connect me with "Trinity College" in Illinois, where I was indeed provost back in the 90s but which I left in 1999. I retain an honorary association as a fellow with its affiliate Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.
Nigel M. de S. Cameron
Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future
Illinois Institute of Technology
www.thehumanfuture.org
- by Nigel M. de S. Cameron on Aug 14, 2005 at 9:59 PM | link
Nigel thanks for your comments, noted in the post.
- by ed on Aug 15, 2005 at 2:27 AM | link
I love this stuff - y'all keep talking!!
- by Beverly on Aug 15, 2005 at 2:15 PM | link
I agree. This is one of the more respectful exchanges I have read between secular and religious bioethicists. I think it is great that they like each other - despite the fact that they both make fun of each other and of Caplan - and I think it would be neat if this could be a real debate someplace. But I get the feeling that the religious zealots and secular technology lovers wouldn't really pay attention to their leaders debating such things. Only the few that operate at this higher level of intellect.
- by Bianca Sanchez on Aug 15, 2005 at 10:21 PM | link
I agree with Bianca. The time really is ripe for a conference on secular and religious bioethics, jointly held by the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and University of Pennsylvania.
If the conference went well, and a reasonable and open debate took place, it could enhance the standing of both institutions among their detractors, and be a victory for bioethics in general -- the culture war mongers could be consigned to television, where they belong.
- by Sam I am on Aug 16, 2005 at 6:53 PM | link
Case in point: I chaired the 8th Naitonal Undergraduate Bioethics Conference (held @ Penn!) this past Spring. Our planning commmittee sent out invitations to a number of high profile speakers.
Who sent rejections to the invitation? Kass and Cardinal Rigali, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (a noted scholar with past work in bioethics). Bill Hurlbut did as well (albiet on much shorter notice than the 7+ months the others got).
Getting moderate and more liberal bioethists wasn't nearly as difficult: we welcomed Mike Gazzaniga, Harold Shapiro, Arthur Caplan (it's Penn, of course) and others. Full list: http://www.bioethics.upenn.edu/nubc/speakers.html The "liberal" crowd readily accepted opportunities to speak to this assemblage of 300+ students from 25 states and 7 different countries.
We really tried to include a variety of philosophical and political bents. But the Right didn't seem willing to join in. Maybe our experience was an exception, but I fear otherwise. William Saletan of Slate Magazine even addressed the issue with his aptly named two-part article "The Strange Timidty of Liberal Bioethics" http://slate.msn.com/id/2116141/
Next year's conference is going to be held at Notre Dame (Spring, 2006). Maybe the change in host institution will affect the political makeup of presenters. Maybe new topics will engender broader discussion. (Although our focus on enhancement begged conservative religious input.)
I wish the next organizers the best of luck in rounding out a broad spectrum of opinions.
- by Andrew Rosenthal on Aug 16, 2005 at 11:56 PM | link
As someone who is not a bioethicist, who reads this blog casually, the whole exchange sounds totally academic.
I doubt any Christian bioethicist could be helpful to me, as a nonChristian, should I be faced with a medical dilemma. Their values are too strange to me.
- by Ivy on Aug 22, 2005 at 6:51 PM | link