The Moral and Social Consequences of the Genetic Revolution
The 21st century has been called "The Biotech Century"and we have already witnessed the birth of many technologies with the power to transform society. Genetic testing raises a host of issues, from threats to privacy to the potential for a new eugenics movement. Will we create a genetic underclass? Will only the poor be bald or overweight? Who will own the genome? Gene therapy, genetic engineering, cloning, and other technologies will be discussed.

The Ethics of Cloning
Reproductive cloning represents several serious ethical challenges. In the short run, it clearly presents unacceptable risks to children, as birth defects and unexpected deaths commonly occur. Reproductive cloning will remain an unethical experiment for the foreseeable future. If it is ever safe, other worries and issues remain-what will the impact of cloning be for the children who are produced? Do we have adequate means for the regulation of the technology? What are the options? In contrast to reproductive cloning, therapeutic cloning (for the procurement of stem cells) would seem to be a promising way of fighting terrible diseases. Even in the case of stem cell research, there are legitimate concerns that need to be considered.

The Ethics of Stem Cell Research
Stem cell research holds out enormous promise as cures for a wide range of diseases and ailments. But there are a number of ethical concerns that this research raises. One set of concerns arises over the status of the stem cells and the way they are derived. What is the moral and metaphysical status of an ex vivo fertilized egg? Is it an embryo? An unborn child? Another concern results from the intense commercialization of the context of stem cell research and the intellectual property rights that have accrued. Finally, as a frontier area of research, there are a number of worries: will we make the same mistakes we made with "gene therapy"?

Bioterrorism and Bioethics
The threat of bioterrorism raises several ethical challenges for the health care system and for the way we regulate science. These threats take place in a context in which over 40 million U.S. citizens are not insured. Is our public health system capable of dealing with the threat of bioterrorism? In the event of bioterrorism will we allow state appropriation of private health care resources? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the intellectual property system in regard to development of needed treatments? In considering the logistics of potential threats, it is important to consider the possibility that new technologies will transform the way we think about bioterrorism. Many pathogens are extremely difficult to get access to at the present time. But in the near future, it may be possible to create these pathogens through genetic engineering. Smallpox could one day be made without the need to get access to anything more complicated than a college laboratory. Should we limit the research that may lead to easy access to deadly pathogens? Or should we increase spending on research in the hopes that the technology that creates these problems is our best defense?

The Ethics of Genetically Modified Organisms
Genetically engineered organisms now make up a large part of the food supply in the U.S. Potential applications include genetically modified wines and trees. Opponents raise a number of criticisms, including concerns over introducing allergens into the food supply, and potentially devastating environmental problems. Most debate has focused on the risks and benefits of the technology, but there is good reason to believe that this is an impoverished framework. Other ethical and religious concerns that are often left out of the debate include worries about the meaning of the "Natural", "playing God", justice, and anxiety over who has control over technology.

Who Owns Life?
In recent years there has been a race to patent genes, organisms, and cells derived from people. Often the people who make this possible by serving as research subjects and the source of tissue, cells and genes are left out when it comes time to decide who benefits. The commercialization of biotechnology raises the specter of business values trumping the values of science and medicine. In addition, a host of new problems are being raised. What is life? Should it be "owned" or does this represent unethical co modification of life? Are current practices bad for science and medicine? Who Owns Life? ed. by Magnus, Caplan, and McGee will be out this Spring from Prometheus Press.

About Dr. Magnus
David Magnus, PhD is currently Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Medicine, and Philosophy at Stanford University, where he is co-Director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics and co-Chair of the Ethics Committee for the Stanford Health Center. He is also Director of the new Scholarly Concentration in Biomedical Ethics and Medical Humanities in the School of Medicine. Before coming to Stanford he was the Graduate Studies Director at the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. He received his PhD in philosophy from Stanford University and has published articles on the history and philosophy of biology and bioethics, particularly on issues concerning genetic technology. He serves on the National Research Council Ad Hoc Committee on the Bioconfinement of Genetically Engineered Organisms, and served as an "expert consultant" for the World Bank on food security and biotechnology and a consultant for the National Conference of State Legislators on cloning. In 2003-2004, he was a member of the Secretary of Agriculture's Advisory Committee on Biotechnology in the 21st Century. He is the principle editor of a collection of essays entitled Who Owns Life? (2002) and his publications have appeared in Science, Nature Biotechnology, and the British Medical Journal. He serves as Associate Editor of the American Journal of Bioethics. He has appeared on many television shows including Good Morning America, CBS This Morning, and FOX News Sunday, several nationally syndicated radio shows and has been quoted in Time magazine, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today among other publications. In addition to his scholarly work, he has published a number of editorial pieces in prominent newspapers.