-
Six: The Politicization of Ethics Advice
- University of Notre Dame Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
S I X The Politicization of Ethics Advice There is more at stake in the debate surrounding the “politicization ” of the Kass Council than the fate of a single advisory body. Indeed, this debate provides a perfect case study to investigate the norms governing the interface between expert knowledge and democratic decision making. The use of knowledge, especially scientific and technical knowledge, to direct and justify action is intrinsic to liberal democratic notions of authority, accountability, and order (Ezrahi 1990). But even as society comes to rely more and more on experts to manage an increasingly technological society,it is far from clear precisely how the relationship between knowledge and power should be arranged (see e.g., Bimber 1996). Throughout the modern era, proposals have ranged from complete autonomy for knowledgeproducers —usually scientists—to absolute control by political elites. For reasons of freedom and accountability, neither of these extremes is compatible with democracy. The production of knowledge must be both sheltered from and connected to society,and it is this delicate balance that the story of the Kass Council can throw into relief. In examining this issue, I hope to replace muddy terminology with clear standards .For example,Fletcher and Miller argue that the greatest peril of public bioethics is“political co-optation,”which “distorts ethical reflection”(Fletcher and Miller 1996, 157). 131 But“distorts”is too vague a term.It is better to see this politicization as the loss of democratic legitimacy stemming from actual and/or perceived failure to uphold the relevant norms of independence, balance, and transparency . The deligitimation of the Kass Council, which happened for several reasons, indicates how the idea of rich public bioethics could be better implemented in the future. From Truth to Expertise: Legitimation of Special Knowledge in a Constructivist Age In the “first wave” of science studies, when logical positivism reigned supreme, science was pictured as a value-free realm of truth (Collins and Evans 2006). We should trust or assent to the cognitive authority of scientists because they have special access to the truth. The current “second wave” of science studies has deflated this image of science.1 The reality of scientific advisory bodies involves a murkier process than Truth speaking to Power (Jasanoff 1990).Oftentimes the experts do not agree amongst themselves. Decision making is forward-looking, so there is almost always uncertainty about the accuracy of scientific findings and predictions (Pielke 2007).Issues such as climate change and contraception involve values that will not be cleared away simply by “getting the science right” or “letting the science speak.” Science can actually hamper policy making by creating an “excess of objectivity,” or situations in which more than one theory can give an equally reasonable account of the relevant state of affairs (Sarewitz 2004). The “second wave” of the systematic study of science has demysti- fied scientific expertise. Thus, H.M. Collins and Robert Evans ask,“If it is no longer clear that scientists and technologists have special access to the truth, why should their advice be specially valued?” (Collins and Evans 2006,40).When it comes to government advisory bodies or“publicdomain sciences,” rather than esoteric sciences, we cannot get by either with “first wave” blind trust or an equation of science with ideology. The first approach trades popular sovereignty for technocracy and has long proven an unacceptable response to the“principle-agent”dilemma posed by special knowledge in democratic societies (Guston 2000). The second 132 The Politics and Policy of Public Bioethics [54.152.5.73] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 13:55 GMT) approach devalues the important contributions of experts. Since government is involved with public-domain science, the relevant audience is broadened beyond the borders of any dispute among experts or over the credentialing process within a specialty to include at the very least some set of policy makers and perhaps even the public at large. Legitimacy and Ethics Advice Public advisory bodies are thus subject to processes of democratic legitimation . Democratic legitimacy often refers to popular acceptance of an authority. I use the term“legitimation”to refer to the processes and norms by which advisory bodies are granted popular assent or trust. By “legitimacy ”I mean“a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions”(Suchman 1995, 574). In other words, legitimacy is “the social acceptance resulting from adherence to regulative...