Bioconservatism calls for regulation and abandonment of biotechnologies deemed dangerous, dehumanizing or immoral, and is supported by religious conservatives and environmental liberals. Technoprogressivism argues for caution and preparation for the adoption of new biotechnologies.
Bioconservatism is a social, political and moral position which calls for the regulation and abandonment of biotechnologies considered by bioconservatives as dangerous, dehumanizing or immoral. Common goals of regulation include genetic modification (genetic engineering) of crops and animals (including humans), preimplantation genetic diagnosis, both therapeutic and reproductive cloning, stem cells, and human enhancement, including radical extension of life and cognitive modification. Bioconservatism is sometimes considered a ‘third dimension’ of political orientation, alongside the more conventional dimensions of social and economic liberalism/conservatism.
What is decidedly unusual about bioconservatism is how it emerges from two groups who otherwise disagree on just about everything: religious conservatives and environmental liberals. Among religious conservatives, bioconservatism is best symbolized by former President Bush’s Bioethics Council and its founding chairman, Leon Kass. Throughout its existence, President Bush’s Council on Bioethics has published articles and books against the application of new biotechnologies such as stem cells, cloning, life extension and human enhancement. The most prominent liberal environmental bioconservative group is the Center for Genetics and Society, based in Oakland, California. Both the President’s Council on Bioethics and the Center for Genetics and Society were founded in 2001 in response to new developments in biotechnology. These groups argue that these new technologies are inhumane, unhealthy and in some cases violate human dignity and the meaning of life.
The counter view to bioconservatism is technoprogressivism or transhumanism. Transhumanist and techno-progressive groups, such as the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, primarily an online organization, argue that new biotechnologies should be adopted with caution. They compare modern bioconservatism with historical uneasiness about cadaver dissection, vaccination, blood donations, IVF, and the use of contraception. According to these groups, new biotechs will be adopted whether or not they are banned in individual jurisdictions, so it makes sense to prepare for their arrival by thinking carefully about the ethics involved.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
