SYLLABUS: PHILOSOPHY 336
BIOETHICS AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
MORRIL HALL RM 1030 MWF 2:10-3:00
STUDY SHEET FOR MIDTERM:
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jwcwolf/336/Study1S08.pdf
Clark Wolf, Instructor email: jwcwolf@iastate.edu
435 Catt Hall Phone: 294-3068
Office Hours: MWF
Class Website and Online Syllabus: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jwcwolf/ClassSyllabi/336S08SYLL.html
Note: You should make sure that you can access the online version
of the syllabus, since many class readings will be available only from the syllabus.
Required Texts and Materials:
1) Magnus, David, Caplan, Arthur & McGee, Glenn.
2002. Who Owns Life?Amherst
NY: Prometheus Books.
2) Glover, Jonathan. 2006. Choosing
Children: Ethical Dilemmas of Genetic Intervention. NY:
3) Harris, John. 2007. Enhancing
Evolution: The Case for Making Better People.
4) Other class materials will be
available over the web, linked from the class syllabus or from the class Web-CT
site.
Objectives: Twenty-First century biotechnology has given us cloned sheep, genetically modified agricultural crops, genetically engineered animals, new options for human reproduction, and alternatives to change our lives and made decisions to shape the lives of our children and descendants. These new technologies present us with policy choices and personal dilemmas. They often force us to reexamine the moral principles and social policies that govern interpersonal behavior and public policy. This course will provide an opportunity to address some of these choices and policies, and to consider the reasons that lie behind them. We will consider moral principles and policies relevant to the evaluation of new technologies and the options they present.
The issues and problems under discussion in this class are,
many of them, pressing moral dilemmas. This means that there are multiple
different ways in which they may be resolved and different moral principles we
might use to resolve them. However, not all resolutions are equally good or
equally justified. Since this is a philosophy course, we will focus our
attention on the evaluation of reasons and arguments that might be used
to support different claims and positions. While I will hold you
responsible for knowing and being able to evaluate arguments on different sides
of the issues considered, and will require that you provide well structured
arguments for whatever positions you defend, I
will not hold you responsible for holding any specific moral position on a
controversial question. You are not (of course) required to accept or
reject any particular view. Students should expect to gain familiarity
wish some of the important ethical issues that arise as a result of advances in
biotechnology and changes in biotech policy, and should be able to discuss and
write about these issues reasonably and articulately.
Class Procedure: This class will be run in part using the
same Socratic Method that is used in most law school classes. I will
sometimes begin class by choosing a student to present main points in the
assigned reading. For the most part I will choose students at random, but
I will make an effort to insure that all students have an opportunity to speak,
and I will keep track. Where material requires, I will sometimes spend
substantial portions of the class presenting information and framing the
arguments and issues under consideration. But a substantial portion of
this class should be structured discussion rather than lecture.
Assignments and Grading: There will be two brief in-class exams, worth
20 points each, and two paper assignments each worth a total of 45% of your
final grade. 10% of your grade will be determined by daily reading
‘synopses,’ explained below. The remaining 5% will be determined by attendance
and class participation.
Short Writing Assignments: Each week I will collect short writing assignments. These need not be long—one page (12 point type, normal margins, single spaced) is quite sufficient.
Case Studies: Students will work in groups to develop a case study exercise to be presented in class at the end of the term. Topics and group assignments will be given out later in the term.
Students
with Disabilities: If you have a disability and anticipate needing
accommodations in this course, please make arrangements to meet with me during
the first two weeks of class. I will gladly make any reasonable
accommodations. Please contact a staff member from Disability Resources
for help filing a
Note on Plagiarism and Academic Honesty: Plagiarism is the wrongful representation of someone else’s work as your own. Plagiarism occurs when someone wrongfully takes words or ideas from another writer or thinker and includes them without citation or reference. It is a form of academic misconduct. Students should avoid this problem by scrupulously citing all resources used in the preparation of class work. All work turned in must be your own.
Case Studies: Students will work in groups to develop a case study exercise to be presented in class at the end of the term. Groups will choose their case study topic. Topics should be identified and approved by the teaching team by October 16.
Class Schedule: Available on the web-version of the
syllabus. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jwcwolf/ClassSyllabi/336S07SYLL.html
CLASS SCHEDULE:
M Jan 14 Introduction to the Course
TOPIC I: ETHICS, JUSTICE, LEGISLATION
W Jan 16 A Brief Introduction to Ethics
Available at http://iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm
F Jan 18 Ethics Intro, Continued
Friday Reading Assignment: Do some web research on “The Ashley Treatment.” You might look at the parent’s Blog (http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/blog/). What is the treatment? Why did Ashley’s parents choose to have this done? Why has this treatment generated so much discussion, support, and outrage? Find critic of “The Ashley Treatment” and be prepared to articulate an argument critical of this treatment.
Friday Writing Assignment: Come to class with a brief one-page discussion of The Ashley Treatment. In your paragraph you should use one or more of the ethical theories discussed in the Jan 16 Reading from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Your paragraphy should apply that theory to evaluate “The Ashley Treatment.”
M Jan 21 NO CLASS: UNIVERSITY NOT IN SESSION
W Jan 23 Ethics,
http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html
F Jan 25
No new Friday reading assignment.
Friday Writing Assignment: Many school newspapers contain advertisements offering to pay young women to donate their ova. Some have proposed that such sales should be prohibited by law. Come to class with a brief one-page discussion evaluating the legal prohibition of ovum sales. Your paper should centrally refer to John Stuart Mill’s “Harm Principle” concerning the limits of legislative authority over the individual.
M Jan 28
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jwcwolf/Papers/Rawls.pdf
W Jan 30
No new reading assignment.
TOPIC II: PROPERTY
RIGHTS IN LIFE: PATENTS, ORGANS, AND LIMITS OF PROPERTIZATION
F Feb 1 Property Rights
Reading: Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Ch. V
Note: You are only assigned Ch. V, not the entire treatise!
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm
Friday Writing Assignment: According to Locke, we own our bodies and our labor. We also own, therefore, what we create with the labor of our bodies and minds, and we come to own things by “mixing our labor” into them. But it is sometimes argued that some things cannot or should not be owned or sold. For example, ownership of people is prohibited, and in many places people are prohibited from selling sexual services. Using Locke, or Mill, or Rawls, or some combination of the views urged by these philosophers, consider whether Lockean ‘ownership of one’s body,’ or the Rawlsian natural right of liberty, or Mill’s restrictions on legislation imply that people should not be permitted to improve their bodies using biotechnology or drugs.
M Feb 4 Patenting Life Forms: The Chakrabarty Case.
For this class I’d like you to read two things. One is a short paper in the collection WHO OWNS LIFE? written by Anada Chakrabarty, holder of the first US patent on a life form. The second is the US Supreme Court case that tested Chakrabarty’s patent. Both are very short.
A.M. Chakrabarty, “Patenting of Life Forms: From Concept to Reality”
Who Owns Life? pp. 17-24
Case: Diamond v. Chakrabarty
Available here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=447&invol=303
Or at this mirror site: [Diamond v. Chakrabarty:
Alternative Access Site]
W Feb 6 Guest Instructor: Sarah Heuer. Schmeiser Case Study Preparation
NOTE ON FEB 6 ASSIGNMENT: Please print out a copy of PART ONE of this case study and bring it to class on Wednesday. You should print out and read the material for each of the four interest groups linked on the web page for PART ONE, but you should be especially careful in reading the material from the group to which you have been assigned. BE SURE that you bring to class the reading material that is associated with your interest group.
GROUP ASSIGNMENTS:
Percy Schmeiser & Schmeiser Enteriprises:
Rachel Barnes, Amy Clark, Ryan Duffield, Andrew Heldt, Steven Lodgsdon, Daniel Carlson, Jessica Studer, Joseph Dolittle
Monsanto Canada Inc.:
John Bartello, Adrien Cole, Jeremy Erny, Allison Helling, Paul Mangiamele, Loan Dinn, William Suppes, Ximena Cibils.
Canadian Organic Farmers:
Jennifer Beloski, Heather Daskal, Kaleb Keller, Amanda Murphy, Andrew Wang, Edwin Han, Nate Logsdon.
Mendel Technologies:
Laura Byrd, Steven DeMeyer, Jay Griffith, Steven Lariviere, Amy Ruhs, Marie-Elaine Limpahan, Jason Hart.
F Feb 8 Guest Instructor: Sarah Heuer: Schmeiser Case Study Exercise
No new reading.
Friday Writing Assignment: Write a one-page brief defending the view of the group to which you have been assigned for the Schmeiser Case Study. Your brief should be designed to convince others of your view.
What additional information would you like to know in order to come to a well-informed conclusion about the Schmeiser Case?
M Feb 11 Alienability and Limitations on Ownership
Radin: “Market Inalienability.”
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jwcwolf/Papers/Radin.pdf
W Feb 13 Inappropriate Commodification?
Mark Hansen, “Patenting Genes and Life: Improper Commodification?”
In Who Owns Life? pp. 161-173.
F Feb 15 Limitations on Intellectual Property?
Mertz, “Discoveries: Are there Limits on What May be Patented?”
In Who Owns Life? pp. 99-116
Friday Writing Assignment: Please write a paragraph or so in which you either argue (a) that genetically engineered organisms should not be subject to patent claims, or (b) that genetically engineered organisms should be subject to patent claims.
M Feb 18 Discovery and Invention in Biotechnology
Resnick, “Discoveries, Inventions, and Gene Patents.”
In Who Owns Life? pp. 135-160.
W Feb 20 Andrews and Nelkin, “Propriety and Property: The Tissue Market Meets the Courts.” In Who Owns Life? pp. 197-215.
F Feb 22. Ossario, “Property Rights and Human Bodies.” In Who Owns Life? 223-241.
Friday Writing Assignment: Please write a paragraph or so in which you consider the case of John Moore, described in Andrews & Nelkin’s paper, assigned on Wed Feb 20.
In your paragraph, please consider and evaluate the following argument: Moore’s doctor developed therapeutic tools from Moore’s spleen, which he had removed. But since Moore did not ask to keep his spleen, the spleen itself should be regarded as abandoned property and available for use by anyone. The physician clearly did wrong to tell Moore that he needed to come back for more tests when he (the physician) was simply collecting Moore’s bodily material for his own commercial use. But since the spleen was abandoned, the court was right to assign property in the cell line Mo to the physician and not to Moore.
M Feb 25 Shiva, from Biopiracy. On the web.
W Feb 27 Magnus, “Intellectual Property and Agricultural Biotechnology.” In Who Owns Life, pp. 265-275.
F Feb 29 Golden Rice Case Study. http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/publications/case_studies/golden_rice/default.html
On the web.
FRIDAY ASSIGNMENT: Please bring to class a paragraph or page in which you defend the view of the group to which you have been assigned in the Golden Rice Case Study.
GROUP ASSIGNMENTS:
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH:
Bartello, Belosky,Byrd, Carlson, Cibils, Clark, Cole, Daskal
MASIPAG:
DeMeyer, Dinh, Doolittle, Duffield, Erny, Fee, Griffith, Han
INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE:
Hart, Heldt, Helling, Keller, Lariviere, Limpahan, N. Logsdon, S. Logsdon
HUMANITARIAN BOARD FOR GOLDEN RICE:
Mangiamele, Ruhs, Studer, Suppes, Thomas, Tweed, Vogl, Wang
TOPIC II: HUMAN
REPRODUCTION, CLONING, AND THE BEGINNING OF LIFE
M March 3 Reading: Robertson, "Non-Coital Reproduction and Reproductive Liberty" On the web.
W March 5 Sunstein, "The Constitution and the Clone"On the web.
F March 7 : Feinberg, "Abortion."On the web.
M March 10 : Feinberg, "Abortion." Continued.
W March 12 Stem Cell Research Case Study: (Not Assigned)
F March 14 FIRST IN CLASS EXAM: Covers all material through 12 March.
CHOOSING CHILDREN AND
HUMAN IMPROVEMENT
M 24 Feinberg, Conclusion. Discussion of the status of the fetus.
W 26 March Sandel, “Against Perfection” On the web. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jwcwolf/Papers/Sandel.htm
F 28 March, Glover, Choosing Children, pp. 1-36.
Don’t Forget: First paper due today!
M 31March Glover Choosing Children, pp. 37-72.
W 2 April March Glover Choosing Children, pp. 73-104.
F 4 April Silvers, "A Fatal Attraction to Normalizing." On the web.
M 7 April Susan Bordo, “Braveheart, Babe, and the Comtemporary Body.” http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jwcwolf/Papers/Bordo.pdf
W 9 April Harris, Enhancing Evolution. pp. 1-35.
F 11 April Harris, Enhancing Evolution, pp. 36-58.
M 14 April Harris Enhancing Evolution, pp. 59-85.
W 16 April Harris, Enhancing Evolution. pp. 86-122.
F 18 April Harris, Enhancing Evolution, pp. 123-142.
M 21 April Harris, Enhancing Evolution pp. 143-159.
W 23 April Harris, Enhancing Evolution, pp. 160-183.
F 25 April Harris, Enhancing Evolution. pp. 184-205
TERM PAPER DUE TODAY!
M April 28
W April 31
F May 2
FINAL EXAM