For decades, the field of bioethics has shaped the way we think about ethical problems in science, technology, and medicine. But its traditional emphasis on individual interests such as doctor-patient relationships, informed consent, and personal autonomy is minimally helpful in confronting the social and political challenges posed by new human biotechnologies such as assisted reproduction, human genetic modification, and DNA forensics. _Beyond Bioethics_ addresses these provocative issues from an emerging standpoint that is attentive to race, gender, class, disability, privacy, and (...) notions of democracy—a "new biopolitics." This authoritative volume provides an overview for those grappling with the profound dilemmas posed by these developments. It brings together the work of cutting-edge thinkers from diverse fields of study and public engagement, all of them committed to this new perspective grounded in social justice and public interest values. (shrink)

The increasing use of DNA evidence has revolutionized criminal investigations. Over the past several years, DNA forensics—once thought to be a less reliable identifier than other forensic techniques, such as latent fingerprinting—have now become the evidentiary gold standard in criminal prosecutions. At the same time, non-DNA-based forensic techniques that have incarcerated thousands are coming under fire. The policy implications of this shifting dynamic—what Michael Lynch and colleagues call an “inversion of credibility”1—can be most clearly seen in the National Research Council’s (...) 2009 report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Conducted at Congress’s request by a .. (shrink)

Race is becoming an increasingly common lens through which biomedical researchers are studying the relevance of genes to group predispositions that may affect disease susceptibility and drug response. These investigations contravene decades of research in the natural and social sciences demonstrating that social categories of race have little genetic significance. Nevertheless, a resounding debate has ensued over the utility of race in biomedical research — particularly as new drugs claiming to serve particular racial populations enter the marketplace. Now that the (...) Food and Drug Administration has approved BiDil as the first race-specific treatment despite conflicting evidence and unsettled debates, is there a way for federal regulators to promote research that may address minority health concerns without giving undue credence to the dangerous idea that social understandings of race are genetically relevant? It may be useful for the FDA to turn to an area with experience negotiating such dilemmas — constitutional law — and its approach — strict scrutiny — to help guide when and under which circumstances government should give effect to racial categories in biomedicine. (shrink)