More specifically, he seeks to explain why bureaucracies are inefficient--that is, why there is always a long line at the Department of Motor Vehicles, but never at McDonald's. He attributes this inefficiency to bureaucratic rules and procedures, including norms, rules, incentives, goals, context, constraints, culture, and values. To explain why government agencies behave as they do, it is crucial to recognize that they are government bureaucracies, not independent businesses, which gives them a completely different set of incentives p. Government agencies cannot lawfully retain and devote to the private benefit of their members the earnings of the organizations so unlike McDonald's, there is no profit-maximization incentive ; Government agencies cannot allocate the factors of production in accordance with the preferences of the organization's administrators so unlike McDonald's, we cannot necessarily move people and equipment to where it is most needed ; Government agencies must serve goals not of the organization's own choosing.
Bush on November 28,by means of Executive Order In connection with its advisory role, the mission of the Council includes the following functions: To undertake fundamental inquiry into the human and moral significance of developments in biomedical and behavioral science and technology.
To explore specific ethical and policy questions related to these developments. To provide a forum for a national discussion of bioethical issues.
To facilitate a greater understanding of bioethical issues. To explore possibilities for useful international collaboration on bioethical issues.
President Bush left the Council free to establish its own priorities among the many issues encompassed within its charter, based on the urgency and gravity of those issues and the public need for practical guidance about them.
The Council had little difficulty in choosing its first topic of inquiry. The ethics of human cloning has been the subject of intense discussion in the United States and throughout the world for more than five years, and it remains the subject of heated debate in Congress.
On the surface, discussion has focused on the safety of cloning techniques, the hoped-for medical benefits of cloning research, and the morality of experimenting on human embryos. But driving the conversations are deeper concerns about where biotechnology may be taking us and what it might mean for human freedom, equality, and dignity.
Human cloning, were it to succeed, would enable parents for the first time to determine the entire genetic makeup of their children.
Bypassing sexual reproduction, it would move procreation increasingly under artful human control and in the direction of manufacture. Seen as a forerunner of possible future genetic engineering, it raises for many people concerns also about eugenics, the project to "improve" the human race.
A world that practiced human cloning, we sense, could be a very different world, perhaps radically different, from the one we know.
It is crucial that we try to understand, before it happens, whether, how, and why this may be so. Investigating human cloning also provides the Council an important opportunity to illustrate how bioethics can and should deal with those technological innovations that touch deeply our humanity.
Here, as elsewhere, the most profound issues go beyond the commonplace and utilitarian concerns of feasibility, safety, and efficacy. In addition, on the policy side, cloning offers us a test case for considering whether public control of biotechnology is possible and desirable, and if so, by what means and at what cost.
The Council commenced deliberations on the topic of human cloning at its first meeting in Januaryand continued the discussion at its February, April, and June meetings, all held in Washington, D. We heard presentations on the recent cloning report of the National Academy of Sciences; on human stem cell research, embryonic and adult; on the ethics of embryo research; and on international systems of regulation of embryo research and assisted reproductive technologies.
We received a great deal of public comment, oral and written. All told, we held twelve ninety-minute conversations on the subject. Recognizing "the complex and often competing moral positions" on biomedical issues, President Bush specified in creating the Council that it need not be constrained by "an overriding concern to find consensus.
We have not suppressed disagreements in search of a single, watered-down position. Instead, we have presented clear arguments for the relevant moral and policy positions on multiple sides of these difficult questions, representing each as fairly and fully as we can.
As a result, the reader will notice that, on some of the matters discussed in the report, Members of the Council are not all of one mind. Members are united, though, in endorsing the worthiness of the approach taken and the importance of the separate arguments made. Accordingly, the Council is unanimous in owning the entire report and in recommending all its discussions and arguments for serious consideration.
Readers interested in delving further into this subject may wish to consult the Bibliography, which includes all of the documents referred to within the report, as well as the verbatim transcripts of our meetings, which are posted at our website www.
It was in his remarks to the nation on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, on August 9,that President Bush first declared his intention to create this Council. At the end of that speech, the President said: This council will keep us apprised of new developments and give our nation a forum to continue to discuss and evaluate these important issues.
As we go forward, I hope we will always be guided by both intellect and heart, by both our capabilities and our conscience.
Chairman Executive Summary For the past five years, the prospect of human cloning has been the subject of considerable public attention and sharp moral debate, both in the United States and around the world.
Since the announcement in February of the first successful cloning of a mammal Dolly the sheepseveral other species of mammals have been cloned.The Ethics of Human Cloning Ethics of Human Cloning ALL 2/11/04 PM Page 1.
Ethical Issues of Human Cloning: An Overview 9 Michael Woods 2. The News Media and the Human Cloning Debate 15 James Q. Wilson 8. Cloning Human Embryos for Medical Purposes Is Unethical My preliminary view is that the central problem is not creating an identical twin but creating it without parents.
Happily, we need not react immediately to human cloning. The task of moving from one sheep to many sheep, and from sheep to other animals, and from animals to humans, will be long and difficult.
Kass, Leon R., and James Q. Wilson. The Ethics of Human Cloning. Washington, DC: AEI, Published by the American Enterprise Institute, The Ethics of Human Cloning consists of two essays written shortly after researchers in Scotland announced the cloning of the sheep, Dolly.
Leon Kass' "The Wisdom of Repugnance" originally appeared in The New Republic, and James Q. Wilson's "The . The Ethics of Human Cloning Leon R. Kass and James Q.
Wilson The AEI Press Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute WASHINGTON, D.C. Kass, Leon R., and James Q. Wilson. The Ethics of Human Cloning. Washington, DC: AEI, Published by the American Enterprise Institute, The Ethics of Human Cloning consists of two essays written shortly after researchers in Scotland announced the cloning of the sheep, Dolly.
Leon Kass' "The Wisdom of Repugnance" originally appeared in The New Republic, and James Q. Wilson's "The . As the title says, Wilson seeks to explain what government agencies (bureaucracies) do and why they do it. More specifically, he seeks to explain why bureaucracies are inefficient--that is, why there is always a long line at the Department of Motor Vehicles, but never at McDonald's.