This Friday, as part of the Bradley Lecture Series, the political science department sponsored "Bioethics and the Constitution," a discussion led by Diana J. Schaub. Schaub is a member of the Bush administration's President's Council on Bioethics as well as professor and chairman of the department of political science at Loyola College in Maryland.
Friday's lecture focused on the debate surrounding the use of federal funding for scientific research involving the destruction of human embryos as well as the rights of fertilized embryos. Schaub acknowledged that in the most straightforward sense, the U.S. Constitution is silent on matters such as bioethics, but at the same time, that it is nevertheless possible to glean guidance from certain clauses of said document.
Schaub began her presentation with an appeal to the common citizen to regulate the boundaries of scientific research as an educated layman with the responsibility to determine the ends of federal funds.
Using historical correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to support her argument, Schaub addressed the concept of intergenerational obligations in the Constitution. She explained that while Jefferson held the need for generational interdependence, Madison supported greater generational linkage.
Schaub indicated that the latter has been the most common interpretation of the Constitution and, in fact, many of these intergenerational obligations are upheld today by documents such as legal wills.
"Biotechnology threatens a recasting of human relationships," said Schaub. "These decisions [on the control of the human genome] might transform what it means to be human." Schaub provided a simple example such as the selection of sex in human embryos through means varying from abortion (in the case that the embryo or fetus is of the undesired sex) to sperm selecting during in vitro fertilization. Schaub noted that already in countries such as China, the preference for male offspring has skewed the traditional male to female ratios.
Schaub questioned whether this determination of sex infringes on the "blessing of liberty" bestowed on all Americans by the Constitution. According to her, the Constitution grants an embryo rights from the moment of conception, and thus, these rights should be protected.
Schaub then turned to Article I, Section Eight of the Constitution, which delineates the powers of Congress. Specifically, she pointed out the "patent clause" which grants Congress the power, "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
Schaub observed that among the powers granted by Section Eight, this is the only power that the Constitution justifies. That is, the power to grant patents is given to Congress expressly to further the progress of science and the useful arts. Schaub indicated that this clause ultimately leads to the implicit assumption that it is Congress's responsibility to judge whether or not federally funded research furthers the public good. In Schaub's opinion, it does not.
Schaub concluded her presentation with an appeal to what she believes is the propensity for eugenics inherent in genetic screening and in vitro fertilization. "There are strong implications that the defective should not be born," she said. In extremity, the necessity to control the genetic code of the unborn would lead to cases of social stratification based on inheritance as represented in the movie Gattaca. These, Schaub said, would be in direct contradiction to Article I Section Nine and Amendment 13, which protect against titles of nobility and slavery, respectively.
Be the first to comment on this article!