Slouching toward policy: Lazy bioethics and the perils of science fiction

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2004, Pages

  Guyer, Ruth Levy ^a   Moreno, Jonathan D ^b  

^a HAVERFORD COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Cloning; Ethical analysis; Gene therapy; Gene transfer; Policymakers; President's Council on Bioethics; Public trust; Science fiction

Indexed keywords

ADVISORY COMMITTEE; BIOETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; BIOMEDICINE; CLONING; ETHICIST; ETHICS; GENE THERAPY; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; MANAGEMENT; POLICY; PUBLIC OPINION; REVIEW; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; STANDARD; TRUST; UNITED STATES; WRITING;

BIOETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES; CLONING, ORGANISM; ETHICAL ANALYSIS; ETHICISTS; GENE THERAPY; HUMANS; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLIC POLICY; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES, ASSISTED; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; TRUST; UNITED STATES; WRITING;

EID: 27944503005     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15265160490908022     Document Type: Review

References (3)

1. Blackburn, E. H. 2004. A 'full range' of bioethical views just got narrower. The Washington Post, 7 March, B 02.
2. Colburn, D. 1996. Rebecca Lilly's brain tumor has come back for the third time. Can gene therapy save her life? The Washington Post Health Section, 2 April, 11.
3. Sandel, M. J. 2004. The case against perfection. The Atlantic, April, 51.