Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

The Phoenix

[group 4] In case 60 we decided that It should go without saying that there needs to be an advisory board whenever we are talking about distributing this much money to various groups. It should also be obvious that individuals with connections to the institutions seeking the funds should not be permitted to be on the board determining whether or not they receive those funds. 
It is also a fear that the money would go to buildings or supplies rather than any being  invested in the advancement of bioethical issues concerning stem cells.  All in all it is very important to keep better track of what the funds are actually going towards.

We took a brief look at the conclusion and looking back on the class came to a consensus that Bioethics does need to advance and there should be more focus on education. 


  1. Sorry I didn't make it to your group, but you've reached a solid conclusion: Bioethics is in its infancy & needs to grow, mature, spread via education. To that end, maybe we can pass along to Glenn McGee a consensus view of how "Bioethics for Beginners" might improve in its next edition.

    We seemed to agree that its format (and price)are preferable to a convention, compendious, Vox Dei sort of mainstream textbook. But we also found context and background lacking, for some of the column "cases"... a paragraph-length patch is not enough to update a decade-old polemic, especially when almost every day's headlines delivers new bioethics developments for our consideration.

    So, we look forward to the 2d edition. Meanwhile, class, I'll continue to review alternative possibilities for the next rendition of our course. Let me know if you have any specific suggestions too.

  2. I don't feel like I have too much to add here. It just seems like common sense that we need people without company bias to be involved in the distribution of funding in order for it to be the most useful to society.
    As for the conclusion of the book that we briefly discussed about science needing to slow down, I heard a lot of people in class saying 'well we need to let things out into the world in order for them to be tested.' I do agree that that would be the FASTEST way to figure out if something will work, but I do not believe it is the safest or in the best interests of the race. I don't think science needs to be slowed, but they way that it is implemented into society needs to be carefully researched by multiple parties so that we can screen it for potential problems, or we are going to end up killing ourselves inadvertently.