Naked regulators: moral pluralism, deliberative democracy and authoritative regulation of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research.
Bioethical issues pose challenges for pluralist, democratic societies due to the need to arbitrate between incompatible views over fundamental beliefs. The legitimacy of public policy is increasingly seen to depend on taking public consultation seriously, and subsequently regulating contested activities such as therapeutic cloning and hESC research. In December 2006, the Australian Federal Parliament lifted the ban on therapeutic cloning, following recommendations of the Legislation Review Committee (Lockhart Committee), which recently reported on its approach and methods in this journal. This column analyses recent accounts of democratic deliberative processes, authoritative regulation and the committee's own account. Authoritative regulation turns out to be largely an appeasement strategy, directed towards the losers of the contest, in this case the opponents of therapeutic cloning and hESC research. This is because regulation fails to minimise harm as perceived by the losers, and fails to meaningfully limit what it is the winners wish to do. Moreover, regulation adds an unnecessary layer of red tape to the work of the winners. Committees of inquiry in bioethical matters should be more open about their processes and their normative recommendations, at the risk of eroding trust in parts of their processes.
Parker
Malcolm
M
University of Queensland.
D001315:Australia; D003001:Cloning, Molecular; D053595:Embryonic Stem Cells; D032984:Ethics, Research; D033161:Government Regulation; D006801:Humans; D028681:Moral Obligations