Biomedical Politics

The abortifacient RU-486 was born in the laboratory, but its history has been shaped by legislators, corporate marketing executives, and protesters on both sides of the abortion debate.

This volume explores how society decides what to do when discoveries such as RU-486 raise complex and emotional policy issues. Six case studies with insightful commentary offer a revealing look at the interplay of scientists, interest groups, the U.S. Congress, federal agencies, and the public in determining biomedical public policy―and suggest how decision making might become more reasoned and productive in the future.

The studies are fascinating and highly readable accounts of the personal interactions behind the headlines. They cover dideoxyinosine (ddI), RU-486, Medicare coverage for victims of chronic kidney failure, the human genome project, fetal tissue transplantation, and the 1975 Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA.

Biomedical science is a double-edged sword. While providing advances in the treatment and quality of life for victims of disease, it also raises agonizing and thorny questions: Should scientists be allowed to pursue research on treatment of disease using fetal tissue from induced abortions? Should terminally ill patients be allowed to choose their own treatment, even if the safety and effectiveness of those treatments are unknown? Should American women be denied access to a nonsurgical abortifacient because some groups feel its use is immoral?We do have some important guidance, however, in the form of several recent decisions, arrived at through arduous give-and-take. In this book from the Institute of Medicine, six landmark cases offer insight into how we might confront future decisions more productively.