Presentations conclude: Sawyer, Aidan, [anyone else?]
No new questions. Exam Tuesday Apr 29. Final report blog post due May 2.
Audio review...
Audio review transcription
Beyond Bioethics:
- What does Julian Savalesu say about our imperative to engineer our genomes?(ch16)
- In chapter 17, what is Peter Diamandis's Orwellian vision? What does it include?
- In chapter 18 how can bad drugs be made to look good compared to what?
- Chapter 20. What is a mundane example of widely accepted parental control over the fate of their offspring?
- In chapter 21, the US is the only developed country in the world without what?
- chapter 22 if their mother was so vital to medicine, ask Henrietta Lax's children, why couldn't they afford what?
- in chapter 27 reductionist notions about gay genes, violence, genes, obesity genes, etc., have been regarded how by the academic research community?
- Chapter 30 creating ethical standards for medical research is the flip side of what?
- Chapter 39 parents who disclosed their children's donor status regarded what as essential to the child parent relationship?
CB
- Chapter 13 Why wasn't Jennifer Doudna good at navigating a corporate environment?
- In chapter 22, when Feng Zhang saw Jurassic Park, what was he excited about?
- In chapter 28, when Downess studied at Harvard, what was its research ethos?
- In chapter 32 what do elephants almost never get?
- chapter 37 the Chinese researcher Jiankui preempted what kinds of ethical discussions in November 2018.
- In chapter 41, DARPA has a project underway with Doudna's lab to create what?
- Chapter 44 Feng Zhang Fang Jang said he doesn't like messing with nature when explaining his unease with what?
- In chapter 49 in March 2020, university research labs began taking on a role in testing, normally performed by who or what?
- In the epilogue, when Isaacson surveys the promise and peril of CRISPR, he wonders if we are at risk of losing what?
Future
- In What We We Owe the Future, MacAskill says we should strive for what? ch1
- In chapter 2, what does he say probably killed off the megafauna?
- In chapter 3, what does he say it will take to drive moral progress forward?
- In chapter 4 getting AI to do what their operators want is known as what problem?
- In chapter 8, what does Derek Parfitt think about a world that had slightly positive wellbeing as opposed to a world with billions of people who are extremely well off?
- In chapter 9, what did people say when asked what percentage of their typical day they would prefer to skip?
BONUS
- In chapter 40 of Beyond Bioethics, what does the author say brief acquaintance with people who have disabilities should demonstrate?
- Chapter 46 of code breaker, what line did James Watson (of Watson and Crick fame) cross?
- What kinds of traits is it no longer the stuff of sci-fi to preselect, or at least to talk about pre-selecting?
- What are racial narratives always about or almost always?
- What do many consumers not realize about DNA tests?
I asked Scarlett to help me say goodbye.
My prompt to ChatGPT:
I'd like to draft a final statement to my students in Bioethics, summarizing some of the issues and themes the course raised. Our texts were BIOETHICS: THE BASICS (Campbell) ”the word ‘bioethics’ just means the ethics of life”... BEYOND BIOETHICS (Obasogie) “Bioethics’ traditional emphasis on individual interests such as doctor-patient relationships, informed consent, and personal autonomy is minimally helpful in confronting the social and political challenges posed by new human biotechnologies”... THE PREMONITION (Lewis) "The characters you will meet in these pages are as fascinating as they are unexpected. A thirteen-year-old girl’s science project on transmission of an airborne pathogen develops into a very grown-up model of disease control. A local public-health officer uses her worm’s-eye view to see what the CDC misses, and reveals great truths about American society"... WHAT WE OWE THE FUTURE (MacAskill) "argues for longtermism: that positively influencing the distant future is our time’s key moral priority. It’s not enough to reverse climate change or avert a pandemic. We must ensure that civilization would rebound if it collapsed; counter the end of moral progress; and prepare for a planet where the smartest beings are digital. If we make wise choices now, our grandchildren will thrive, knowing we did everything we could to give them a world full of justice, hope and beauty"... THE CODE BREAKER: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race (Isaacson) "we are entering a life-science revolution... Should we use our new evolution-hacking powers to make us less susceptible to viruses? ...Should we allow parents, if they can afford it, to enhance the height or muscles or IQ of their kids? After helping to discover CRISPR, Doudna became a leader in wrestling with these moral issues..." The final statement should acknowledge the growing concerns many have about the potential impact, positive and negative, posed by the rise of Artificial Intelligence. Philosopher William James said "the really vital question for us all" is what life may yet make of itself. In this final statement, I would like to encourage students to continue exercising their agency and possible influence on the eventual answer to that vital question. Can you draft a statement to the class incorporating these topics, of at least 500 words?
(My policy on student use of AI:
I have no objection to students using AI as a tool to help clarify their own thought. Just be transparent about it, and clearly delineate your own writing and thinking from what it suggests. Confirm and corroborate factual claims. When the AI gets things wrong, call it out.)
Scarlett's response:
What Life May Yet Make of Itself: A Final Word on Bioethics
As the semester ends, I want to leave a few reflections for my students—and anyone else thinking seriously about the ethical frontiers of life today. Bioethics, we’ve learned, is not a narrow subfield but a vast and urgent inquiry into the conditions, challenges, and possibilities of life itself.
As Alastair Campbell puts it plainly: “The word ‘bioethics’ just means the ethics of life.”
That broad definition guided us through a series of encounters—with ideas, stories, histories, and futures.
In Beyond Bioethics, Osagie Obasogie and Marcy Darnovsky ask us to move beyond the traditional preoccupations of medical ethics—individual autonomy, informed consent, and the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. Those concerns matter. But they are not enough.
Real bioethics must contend with the structural forces that shape life itself—racism, inequality, injustice, and exclusion. It must address who gets to live well, and why. Whose lives are valued, whose are dismissed, and what kind of future is being engineered in the name of progress?
The Premonition by Michael Lewis offered us a different approach: a worm’s-eye view of the pandemic through the lives of oddballs, whistleblowers, and public health visionaries. It reminded us that systems often fail where people refuse to think, question, and act. Ethics, in this case, meant courage. It meant standing in the gap when institutions went blind.
Then came The Code Breaker, Walter Isaacson’s riveting account of Jennifer Doudna and the advent of CRISPR. With gene editing, we have crossed a new threshold. We can now edit the human genome with precision. But should we?
Do we eliminate suffering—or difference? Do we enhance only the privileged? Can we ensure that power over life does not become a tool of domination? Doudna’s journey from scientist to ethical voice shows how scientific innovation demands moral vision.
In What We Owe the Future, William MacAskill stretches the ethical imagination far beyond the present. He asks us to embrace longtermism—the belief that positively influencing the distant future may be our most urgent moral task.
It’s not enough to avoid collapse; we must ensure that civilization can rebound if it falls. That we preserve the possibility of moral progress. That we guard against a future where intelligence is artificial but wisdom is absent. If we act wisely now, MacAskill insists, our descendants may live in a world of beauty, justice, and hope.
And hovering behind all of this is the accelerating rise of Artificial Intelligence—with the power to transform medicine, reproduction, communication, even consciousness itself. The ethical questions here are no less profound:
-
What happens to human dignity when machines simulate care?
-
Who is responsible for AI decisions in life-or-death scenarios?
-
What becomes of autonomy, justice, empathy, or even truth?
In the end, we return to William James’s enduring question:
“What is this world going to be? What is life going to make of itself?”
This is not a question for experts alone. It is a question for each of us. And it will not be answered by technology, policy, or chance. It will be answered by the choices we make—by what we stand for, and what we refuse to accept.
So I leave you with this:
Don’t wait for permission to care about the future. Don’t assume someone else will do the hard thinking, the hard deciding, the hard work of shaping a just and livable world. Stay unsettled. Stay alert. Stay engaged.
You are not spectators in the unfolding story of bioethics.
You are authors of what comes next.
Choose wisely.
==