Alannah Kittle – blog.Bioethics.gov https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog The blog of the 2009 - 2017 Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues Mon, 09 Jan 2017 23:23:29 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Deliberation and Education in Ethics and Ebola https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/12/17/deliberation-and-education-in-ethics-and-ebola/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/12/17/deliberation-and-education-in-ethics-and-ebola/#respond Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:17:51 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1776 This is the last post in our “Deliberation and Education” series. In each blog post, we have discussed the role that deliberation and education have played in each of the reports issued by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission). This post will examine deliberation and education in the Bioethics Commission’s brief Ethics and Ebola: Public Health Planning and Response, released in February 2014.

In Ethics and Ebola, the Bioethics Commission turned its attention to the ethical and prudential reasons for U.S. engagement in the global response to the ongoing Ebola epidemic. The Commission recommended policies and practices to support a proactive response to global public health emergencies. In the brief, the Commission considered several lessons that the U.S. response to the epidemic in western Africa has for ethics preparedness and future public health emergencies, related to engagement, infrastructure, communications, and ethics integration.

The Bioethics Commission recognized that democratic deliberation is an important component of public health emergency preparedness because it fosters dialogue with affected communities and promotes flexible decision making. The Commission acknowledged that while the process of democratic deliberation can be challenging during a crisis, when decisions must be made quickly, public engagement is still necessary and possible during a health emergency.

The Bioethics Commission explicitly included education in its third overarching recommendation:

Public officials have a responsibility to support public education and communication regarding the nature and justification of public health responses.

The Bioethics Commission recognized that effective communication can help to educate the public on the nature of the health emergency; provide information on the rationale for policies and programs; and help mitigate the stigma and discrimination associated with many public health emergencies.

Education and democratic deliberation play key roles during both public health emergencies and throughout the work of the Bioethics Commission. These two principles, the cornerstones of the Commission’s work and process, will be the focus of the Commission’s forthcoming capstone report. Ethics and Ebola and all other Commission reports and educational materials are available at Bioethics.gov.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/12/17/deliberation-and-education-in-ethics-and-ebola/feed/ 0
Catching up with the Commission: Fall Conference Season Wrap-up https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/12/01/catching-up-with-the-commission-fall-conference-season-wrap-up/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/12/01/catching-up-with-the-commission-fall-conference-season-wrap-up/#respond Tue, 01 Dec 2015 16:42:13 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1765 The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) recently ended a very busy fall conference season. Bioethics Commission staff members presented at major bioethics, public health, and specialty conferences across the country in order to promote the work of the Commission.

Former Bioethics Commission staff member Misti Ault Anderson kicked-off conference season at the International Conference on Science in Society, held October 1-2, 2015 in Chicago, Ill. Anderson gave a plenary address on the integration of ethics into science education to an audience of science scholars and professionals from across the world. The following week, Anderson traveled to Greenville, S.C. where she presented “Global Public Health Planning and Response Case Studies as a Teaching Tool,” highlighting the Commission’s new Ebola educational materials at the 17th International Conference on Ethics Across the Curriculum.

On October 16, the Bioethics Commission was back in Chicago for the International Neuroethics Society’s annual meeting. At this meeting, Commission member Dr. Daniel Sulmasy moderated the panel “Implementing Gray Matters: Perspectives on Bioethics Commission Recommendations.” Dr. Sulmasy was joined by William Casebeer of Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Laboratories, Debra Mathews of Johns Hopkins University, and Hannah Maslen of the University of Oxford for a discussion about the Commission’s report on neuroscience and the implementation of recommendations.

October 22-25, Bioethics Commission staff headed to Houston, Texas for the American Society for Bioethics + Humanities’ (ASBH) 17th Annual Meeting. The Commission’s Ethics and Ebola report was highlighted in the presentation “Ethics and Ebola: Bioethical Approaches to Global Public Health Emergencies.” The Commission’s work on neuroscience was featured in several presentations, including the panel “Considerations of Topics at the Intersection of Neuroscience, Ethics, and Society” as well as the paper “Neuroscience and Public Policy: A Responsible Path Forward.” In addition, Commission staff and Mark Hakkarinen of Georgetown University’s Kennedy Institute of Ethics discussed the communication techniques employed by the Commission in order to disseminate its work in the presentation “Public Bioethics in the New Millennium: Creatively Communicating the Work of the Presidential Bioethics Commission.” The Commission also had an informational booth with hardcopies of its reports available in the ASBH exhibition space.

Quickly following ASBH, the Bioethics Commission was at the 64th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Tropical Medicine & Hygiene in Philadelphia, Pa. On October 27, Associate Director Kata Chillag moderated the conference’s scientific session on Ebola, where she also presented “Ethics and Ebola: Recommendations of the U.S. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.”

The Bioethics Commission ended October at the 2015 American Public Health Association (APHA) Annual Meeting, held October 31-November 4 in Chicago. Three staff members gave presentations during the roundtable on the ethical conduct of public health practice and research in challenging situations: Kata Chillag presented “Moral Distress among Public Health Professionals: Lessons from the West African Ebola Virus Disease Epidemic for Future Public Health Emergencies”; Karen Meagher presented “Feeling torn, tough choices, and troubled thoughts: The concept of moral distress”; and Executive Director Lisa M. Lee, who also moderated the roundtable, presented “Ethics and Ebola: Recommendations from the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues”. Copies of Commission reports Ethics and Ebola and “Ethically Impossible” were also distributed.

Finally, the Bioethics Commission closed out conference season at the Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R) 2015 Advancing Ethical Research (AER) Conference, held November 12-15 in Boston, Mass. On November 13, Commission Member Dr. Christine Grady and Commission staff Elizabeth Fenton and Kata Chillag presented “Clinical Research During the Ebola Epidemic: Recommendations from the Bioethics Commission,” highlighting the Commission’s research-related recommendations in its Ethics and Ebola report. The following day, Commission staff Elizabeth Fenton and Nicole Strand presented “A Dialogue with the Bioethics Commission,” providing insight into how a Presidential commission functions.

The Bioethics Commission has had a busy and successful fall season sharing its work with a variety of important stakeholders. Thanks to all who attended! The Commission is already looking forward to an equally successful 2016.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/12/01/catching-up-with-the-commission-fall-conference-season-wrap-up/feed/ 0
Bioethics Deliberation and Education in Gray Matters https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/10/21/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-gray-matters/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/10/21/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-gray-matters/#respond Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:42:27 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1734 In last week’s continuation of our “Deliberation and Education” series, we discussed the role of deliberation and education in the recommendations issued by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) in its sixth report: Anticipate and Communicate. This week’s post will examine deliberation and education in the Bioethics Commission’s Gray Matters reports.

As part of the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative announced in April 2013, President Obama asked the Bioethics Commission to review the ethical issues associated with the conduct and application of neuroscience research advances. Gray Matters is a two volume Commission report on neuroscience and ethics.

In Gray Matters: Integrative Approaches for Neuroscience, Ethics, and Society (Gray Matters, Vol. 1), released in May 2014, the Bioethics Commission focused on the importance of integrating ethics and neuroscience early and explicitly throughout the research endeavor, and called for funding for ethics. In Gray Matters: Topics at the Intersection of Neuroscience, Ethics, and Society (Gray Matters, Vol. 2), released in March 2015, the Commission focused its analysis on three particularly controversial topics that illustrate the ethical tensions and societal implications of advancing neuroscience and technology.

In Gray Matters, Vol. 1, the Bioethics Commission made four recommendations focused on integrating ethics and neuroscience research. In its third recommendation, the Commission directly recommended education as a part of this integration:

Government agencies and other research funders should initiate and support research that develops innovative models and evaluates existing and new models for integrating ethics and science through education at all levels.

During its deliberations, the Bioethics Commission heard from a number of scientists and educators who emphasized the importance of ensuring that researchers understand the role of ethics in good science. The Commission concluded that ethics and science education should be integrated across the curriculum at all levels, not just in graduate school, in order to create a strong, lasting foundation.

In Gray Matters, Vol. 2, the Bioethics Commission focused its analysis on three topics: cognitive enhancement, consent capacity, and neuroscience and the legal system. The Commission made 14 recommendations to guide the ethical progress of neuroscience research and its applications; the recommendations are divided by topic area and including one concluding recommendation. The Commission included education in its tenth recommendation, under neuroscience and the legal system:

Government bodies and professional organizations, including legal societies and nonprofit organizations, should develop, expand, and promote training resources, primers, and other educational tools that explain the application of neuroscience to the legal system for distribution to members of the public, jurors, judges, attorneys, and others.

In addition, education was also included in the Bioethics Commission’s final, overarching recommendation:

The BRAIN Initiative should establish and fund organized, independent, multidisciplinary efforts to support neuroscience and ethics research and education, including the activities recommended in this report.

Education plays a central role in both volumes of Gray Matters. By providing ethics education and information on the advances of neuroscience, we can ensure that ethical neuroscientific advances continue while avoiding hype and misinformation in a rapidly evolving field.

Both volumes of Gray Matters and all other Bioethics Commission reports are available at bioethics.gov.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/10/21/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-gray-matters/feed/ 0
Bioethics Deliberation and Education in Anticipate and Communicate https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/10/15/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-anticipate-and-communicate/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/10/15/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-anticipate-and-communicate/#respond Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:32:16 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1732 Last month, we left off our “Deliberation and Education” series with the blog post “Bioethics Deliberation and Education in Safeguarding Children.” Like previous posts in this series, it examined the role of deliberation and education in the recommendations issued by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission). This fifth post in the series will examine deliberation and education in the Bioethics Commission’s sixth report: Anticipate and Communicate: Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts.

Anticipate and Communicate, released in December 2013, expands upon the Bioethics Commission’s previous report, Privacy and Progress in Whole Genome Sequencing. Recognizing that the ethics of reporting incidental findings to individuals was an important and unsettled issue raised in Privacy and Progress, the Commission chose to examine both incidental and secondary findings further in a later report.

The Bioethics Commission made 17 recommendations, divided into overarching and context-specific recommendations for clinicians, researchers, and direct-to-consumer companies. In its fourth overarching recommendation, the Commission directly recommended education as a part of the ethical management of incidental and secondary findings:

Public and private entities should prepare educational materials to inform all stakeholders—including practitioners, institutional review boards, and potential recipients—about the ethical, practical, and legal considerations raised by incidental and secondary findings.

The Bioethics Commission recognized that education is important for ensuring both that the public is able to make informed decisions and that practitioners are aware of their ethical obligations with regard to incidental findings. With this in mind, the Commission created a series of primers for IRB members, practitioners, and recipients to support the practical application of its recommendations. These primers are only the beginning; there still remain numerous opportunities for a variety of groups, organizations, and professional bodies to assist in educating stakeholders about incidental and secondary findings.

Anticipate and Communicate, the Bioethics Commission’s educational materials, and all other Commission reports are available at bioethics.gov.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/10/15/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-anticipate-and-communicate/feed/ 0
Bioethics Deliberation and Education in Safeguarding Children https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/09/09/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-safeguarding-children/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/09/09/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-safeguarding-children/#respond Wed, 09 Sep 2015 16:29:25 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1706 In the most recent post for the “Deliberation and Education” series, we examined the role of deliberation in the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) fourth report Privacy and Progress in Whole Genome Sequencing. While not specifically citing democratic deliberation in its recommendations in Privacy and Progress, the Bioethics Commission actively demonstrated the principle by inviting experts from the public and private sectors to inform their public deliberations on the topic. The fifth post in the series will examine deliberation and education in the Commission’s fifth report: Safeguarding Children: Pediatric Medical Countermeasure Research.

At the request of the Secretary for Health and Human Services, the Bioethics Commission conducted a careful and transparent review of the ethical considerations of conducting medical countermeasure (MCM) research with children.

Safeguarding Children, published in March 2013, is the Bioethics Commission’s response to this request. In this report, the Commission made six recommendations concerning MCM research with children, differentiating between pre-event (before exposure to an agent) and post-event (after exposure) research. The Commission identified four ethical principles to guide their discussion of pediatric research protections: respect for persons, beneficence, justice, and democratic deliberation. The Commission recognized that in research, one example of democratic deliberation is community engagement—the process of including community members in an ongoing public exchange of ideas. Democratic deliberation can also be present in various aspects of institutional research review and approval. The Commission referenced community engagement and democratic deliberation in its recommendations for both pre- and post-event research.

In its fourth recommendation, the Bioethics Commission included community engagement in its recommended ethical framework for national-level review of pre-event research that poses more than minimal risk without a prospect of direct benefit. Through this framework, the Commission sough to specify a rigorous set of conditions necessary to determine whether research is conducted in accordance with “sound ethical principles”—a regulatory requirement for this exceptional type of research.

The Bioethics Commission determined that community engagement would be particularly important in a post-event scenario, when it’s necessary to educate the public about research, allow them to inform the researchers about their concerns, and encourage the public to utilize the results of the research. The Commission recommended that, for post-event research:

… Institutional review boards must also ensure that…provisions are made to engage communities throughout the course of research.

Both recommendations described here reflect the Bioethics Commission’s emphasis on the importance of democratic deliberation and its practical implementation. By engaging the community throughout the research process—be it pre- or post-event—researchers can ensure that the public remains aware of what is occurring, while the community can guarantee that its voices and concerns are being heard.

Safeguarding Children and all other Bioethics Commission reports are available at bioethics.gov.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/09/09/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-safeguarding-children/feed/ 0
Bioethics Deliberation and Education in Privacy and Progress https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/08/20/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-privacy-and-progress/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/08/20/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-privacy-and-progress/#respond Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:36:15 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1686 Last week, we continued our “Deliberation and Education” series with the blog post “Bioethics Deliberation and Education in Moral Science.” Each post in this series explores the role of deliberation and education in the recommendations issued by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission). This fourth post in the series will examine deliberation and education in the Bioethics Commission’s fourth report: Privacy and Progress in Whole Genome Sequencing.

Privacy and Progress, released in October 2012, is the Bioethics Commission’s first self-directed project. Recognizing that the increased use of genetic testing in research and the clinic could yield both major advances in healthcare as well as ethical dilemmas, the Commission sought to study the pressing privacy and data access issues raised by the emergence of low cost whole genome sequencing. In Privacy and Progress, the Commission sought to outline many of the key issues surrounding how to reconcile an individual’s need for privacy, consent, and respect with the need for gathering data from many individuals to advance scientific discoveries for the common good.

The Bioethics Commission made 12 recommendations centered around several themes: strong baseline protections while promoting data access and sharing; data security and access to databases; informed consent; facilitating progress in whole genome sequencing; and public benefit. While none of the recommendations specifically included democratic deliberation or education, democratic deliberation was specifically cited as one of the principles the Commission included in their ethical framework for considering the implications of scientific advances. The guiding principles included: public beneficence, responsible stewardship, intellectual freedom and responsibility, democratic deliberation, and justice and fairness. First described in detail in New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies, the Commission applied these principles, along with the principle of respect for persons, to their examination of the science of whole genome sequencing. This ethical framework directed their analysis towards a focus on pursuing public benefit while minimizing both personal and public risk.

For Privacy and Progress, the Bioethics Commission focused its ethical analysis on issues of privacy associated with whole genome sequencing data. While not specifically citing democratic deliberation in its recommendations, the Commission actively demonstrated the principle by inviting experts from the public and private sectors to inform their public deliberations on the topic, a process it has engaged in since its establishment.

Privacy and Progress and all other Bioethics Commission reports are available at bioethics.gov.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/08/20/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-privacy-and-progress/feed/ 0
Bioethics Deliberation and Education in Moral Science https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/08/11/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-moral-science/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/08/11/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-moral-science/#respond Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:22:42 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1683 Last month, we introduced our new “Deliberation and Education” series with the blog post “A Background on Deliberation and Education in Bioethics.” This post highlighted the role of deliberation and education in the recommendations issued by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission), and in a following post, we examined the role of these principles in the Bioethics Commission’s first report: New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies. The third post in this series will examine deliberation and education in the Commission’s third report: Moral Science: Protecting Participants in Human Subjects Research.

The report came at the request of President Barack Obama, who asked the Bioethics Commission to conduct an assessment of research standards following the October 2010 revelation that the U.S. Public Health Service supported unethical research in Guatemala in the 1940s. The President gave the Bioethics Commission two assignments: to oversee a thorough fact-finding investigation into the specifics of the studies and to assure that current rules for research participants protect people from harm or unethical treatment, domestically as well as internationally. The Commission released “Ethically Impossible” STD Research in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948, in response to the first part of the President’s request, in September 2011. The second report, Moral Science, was released in December 2011.

In Moral Science, the Bioethics Commission made 14 recommendations, centering around a number of themes, including: improving accountability, creating a culture of responsibility, respecting equivalent protections, and promoting community engagement. While many of the recommendations were heavily centered around research or policy in order to create a culture of responsibility, the Bioethics Commission made a recommendation (#7) that included ethics education:

To ensure the ethical design and conduct of human subjects research, universities, professional societies, licensing bodies, and journals should adopt more effective ways of integrating a lively understanding of personal responsibility into professional research practice. Rigorous courses in bioethics and human subjects research at the undergraduate as well as graduate and professional levels should be developed and expanded to include ongoing engagement and case reviews for investigators at all levels of experience.

This recommendation reflects the Bioethics Commission’s emphasis on the importance of education, one that continues to be integrated into both the Commission’s later reports and in the creation of its expanding library of educational materials. By providing ethics education across the curriculum, the scientific community ensures that the clinical, research, and professional contexts are built upon solid ethical foundations, proactively preventing ethical lapses.

Moral Science and all other Bioethics Commission reports are available at bioethics.gov.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/08/11/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-moral-science/feed/ 0
Bioethics Deliberation and Education in New Directions https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/07/23/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-new-directions/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/07/23/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-new-directions/#respond Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:42:59 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1670 Two weeks ago, in the blog post “A Background on Deliberation and Education in Bioethics,” we discussed the role of deliberation and education in the recommendations issued by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission). These principles remain a common thread throughout the Bioethics Commission’s work. This second post of the new “Deliberation and Education” series will examine the role that these two principles played in the Commission’s first report: New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies.

Released in December 2010, New Directions was undertaken at the request of President Barack Obama, who asked the Bioethics Commission to review the developing field of synthetic biology and identify appropriate ethical boundaries to maximize public benefits and minimize risks. The Commission made 18 recommendations in the report, centering around five ethical principles: public beneficence; responsible stewardship; intellectual freedom and responsibility; democratic deliberation; and justice and fairness.

In order to promote responsible stewardship, the Bioethics Commission made a recommendation (#9) that included ethics education:

Ethics education similar or superior to the training required today in the medical and clinical research communities should be developed and required for all researchers and student-investigators outside the medical setting, including in engineering and materials science.

The Bioethics Commission recognized that integrating ethics education into the curriculum was necessary in order to cultivate responsible research practices. In addition, democratic deliberation appeared as its own principle with three corresponding recommendations (# 14-16):

Stakeholders are encouraged to maintain an ongoing exchange regarding their views on synthetic biology and related emerging technologies, sharing their perspectives with the public and with policy makers.

When discussing synthetic biology, individuals and deliberative forums should strive to employ clear and accurate language.

Educational activities related to synthetic biology should be expanded and directed to diverse populations of students at all levels, civil society organizations, communities, and other groups.

The three recommendations, which also include education, serve to guide democratic deliberation, a process the Bioethics Commission uses in its own decision-making.

Bioethics education and deliberation have served as a foundation for the Bioethics Commission since its very first report. These concepts appear throughout the Commission’s work, demonstrating their applicability across the biomedical, research, and clinical spheres.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/07/23/bioethics-deliberation-and-education-in-new-directions/feed/ 0
A Background on Deliberation and Education in Bioethics https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/07/07/a-background-on-deliberation-and-education-in-bioethics/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/07/07/a-background-on-deliberation-and-education-in-bioethics/#respond Tue, 07 Jul 2015 17:08:28 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1664 Last August, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) began formally discussing the role of deliberation and education in bioethics. As a part of this examination, the Bioethics Commission is exploring the idea of teaching deliberation as a tool to promote ethical literacy.

From the start, the Bioethics Commission has adopted democratic deliberation as its process for decision making. At the heart of this process is open and robust dialogue, demonstrated in the Commission’s quarterly public meetings, held most recently on May 27, 2015. The goal of democratic deliberation and the Commission’s decision-making process is not to have Commission members agree completely on all issues; instead, members strive to clearly identify issues during their deliberation and to reach consensus as to what advice to offer on how to navigate such issues.

Bioethics by its very nature is a multidisciplinary field, bringing together experts in medicine, law, science, and philosophy; however, there remains a need for improved bioethics education. Noting this educational gap, the Bioethics Commission has developed pedagogical materials to support the teaching of bioethics ideas, principles, and theories across many areas of study. The creation of these educational materials serves to further promote the development of deliberative democracy.

The resulting capstone report will serve to represent the Bioethics Commission’s “commitment to advance and promote education and deliberation on some of the most important issues of bioethics in our time,” said Commission Chair Dr. Amy Gutmann. “Recognizing that education is required for informed deliberation, and that deliberation enhances education at all levels, this new report will integrate deliberation and education as overarching themes of the Commission’s work, and focus on their symbiotic relationship as twin pillars of public bioethics,” Gutmann said.

While all reports produced to date have been topic-specific, deliberation and education have been a constant thread throughout the Bioethics Commission’s work. In this new blog series, we will examine how deliberation and education have appeared in the Commission’s reports and recommendations, from New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Topics to Gray Matters: Integrative Approaches for Neuroscience, Ethics, and Society. Can’t wait and want to examine the reports for yourself? Visit bioethics.gov/projects for a complete list of all Commission reports.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/07/07/a-background-on-deliberation-and-education-in-bioethics/feed/ 0
The Bioethics Commission Remembers Commission Member John D. Arras https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/the-bioethics-commission-remembers-commission-member-john-d-arras/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/the-bioethics-commission-remembers-commission-member-john-d-arras/#respond Wed, 27 May 2015 13:54:08 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1633 john-arras_portrait

Today, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) remembered one of their own. Dr. John Arras, a member of the Bioethics Commission and the Porterfield Professor of Biomedical Ethics and Professor of Philosophy and Public Health Sciences at the University of Virginia, passed away on March 9, 2015.

“He enlivened our deliberations and contributed far more than his share to our painstaking work,” said Dr. Amy Gutmann, the Chair of the Bioethics Commission in a tribute posted to the Bioethics Commission’s website. “We are grieving the tremendous loss of a great teacher, scholar, and member of our bioethics family, and we already miss him greatly,” she wrote.

Dr. Thomas Murray, President Emeritus of The Hastings Center and a close friend and colleague of Dr. Arras, also offered remarks. “Over the course of his career, John wrote incisively on many issues… He also contributed mightily to the critical evaluation of method and theory in bioethics,” said Murray in a commentary published in the Hastings Center Report. “John loved to teach, and we can be grateful for generations of students and colleagues who learned from him,” he expressed.

President Obama appointed Arras to the Bioethics Commission in 2010 and he served until his death in March. He was 69 years old.

“I can only add to this that as a lover of learning, and seeker of justice for all, John Arras was as good as we can ever hope to get,” said Gutmann.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/the-bioethics-commission-remembers-commission-member-john-d-arras/feed/ 0