Jonathan D. Moreno
Author of Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans
About the Author
Jonathan D. Moreno is the author and editor of many seminal books, including The Body Politic: The Battle Over Science in America and Mind Wars: Brain Science and the Military in the 21st Century. He is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, a member of the UNESCO International Bioethics show more Committee, and a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. show less
Works by Jonathan D. Moreno
In the Wake of Terror: Medicine and Morality in a Time of Crisis (2003) — Editor — 26 copies, 1 review
Impromptu Man: J.L. Moreno and the Origins of Psychodrama, Encounter Culture, and the Social Network (2014) 21 copies, 6 reviews
Science Next: Innovation for the Common Good from the Center for American Progress (2009) 18 copies, 1 review
Arguing Euthanasia: The Controversy Over Mercy Killing, Assisted Suicide, And The "Right To Die" (1995) 18 copies, 1 review
Is There an Ethicist in the House?: On the Cutting Edge of Bioethics (Bioethics and the Humanities) (2005) 6 copies
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Birthdate
- 1952-06-11
- Gender
- male
- Education
- Hofstra University (BA|Philosophy and Psychology)
Hofstra University (PhD|Philosophy) - Occupations
- philosopher
historian
university professor - Organizations
- University of Pennsylvania
National Academy of Sciences - Short biography
- Jonathan D. Moreno served on President Obama’s transition team and has been a senior staff member for three presidential advisory commissions and on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Bioethics Advisory Board for the Grand Challenges in Global Health Initiative. Author and editor of many seminal books and articles on science and science policy (including Science Next, edited with Rick Weiss, and Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense), he is the David and Lyn Silfen University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the editor-in-chief for the Center for American Progress’ online magazine, Science Progress. He divides his time between Philadelphia and Washington, DC.
- Nationality
- USA
- Birthplace
- Hudson Valley, New York, USA
- Associated Place (for map)
- New York, USA
Members
Reviews
This volume is a rare thing--a book about science, ethics, and the ethics of science that does a very good job of providing a balanced presentation of both sides of the issue (pro-technology vs. pro-status quo) without waving a flag for either. Moreno's presentation is actually so balanced I found myself wishing he'd take more of a stance for one side or the other. It's an odd experience reading a book about so polemical a topic, sans polemics. Moreno does a good job of tracking the debate show more throughout the centuries, following the main lines of thinking as they respond to each new scientific development. The volume is surprisingly comprehensive for all that it's so slim, and readers looking for a brief, but comprehensive and dense introduction to the subject of biopolitics and bioethics could do far, far worse than this book. That said, if you're looking for someone to take sides and argue either for or against the issue, you're going to come away disappointed--even Moreno's brief foray into the realm of personal opinion in the final chapter is surprisingly measured. Come to this book for the introduction to a complicated, involved topic. show less
This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.Are we making monsters in university laboratories? How much is a life worth? Where does science start and religion end? When it comes to contemporary advances in science, the general public can feel lost on the margins as new discoveries whizz past like speeding rockets on the Bonneville Salt Flats. As humans we are primed to distrust or misunderstand unfamiliar things or states of being. Is it any wonder that popular culture since the dawn of the modern era is full of out of control show more scientific experimentation such as that found in Mary Shelley's cautionary novel "Frankenstein"?
Fear of the unknown may often be polarizing. Knowledge may be liberating. Jonathan Moreno's new book, "The Body Politic: The Battle Over Science in America", shines a light on the issues surrounding contemporary scientific explorations. Moreno focuses on the current place of science and politics in the United States, yet Moreno also deftly explores through a long lens, the philosophical history of scientific thought and the political debates that have ensued.
Moreno argues in a balanced fashion, as his book considers the debates over the ethics undergirding contemporary scientific discoveries and explorations. Should the government fund scientific projects? Is there a limit to scientific advancement? The discussion becomes especially heated in the political sphere, when advancements in current Biology are considered. At times, the rhetoric adheres to a standard Red State vs. Blue State pattern. Moreno explains that, when considering science, alternatives exist to the stagnant polarization often found in the political sphere. Moreno quotes Charles Peirce’s definition that science “does not consist so much in knowledge…as it does in diligent inquiry into truth for truth’s sake, without any sort of axe to grind, nor for the sake of delight of contemplating it, but from the impulse to penetrate into the reason of things….”
Moreno’s “The Body Politic” delves deeply into the battles over science in our era and ultimately calms our irrational fears by questioning the mad scientist trope: "The notion that science is an enemy of moral and civic education is puzzling. How then to account for the coincidence of the development of science with the growth of liberal democracy and the recognition of human rights since the eighteenth century?”
Jonathan Moreno's groundbreaking book, "The Body Politic: The Battle Over Science in America", should be required reading for all students in the sciences and all those interested in our place in the universe. Highly recommended. show less
Fear of the unknown may often be polarizing. Knowledge may be liberating. Jonathan Moreno's new book, "The Body Politic: The Battle Over Science in America", shines a light on the issues surrounding contemporary scientific explorations. Moreno focuses on the current place of science and politics in the United States, yet Moreno also deftly explores through a long lens, the philosophical history of scientific thought and the political debates that have ensued.
Moreno argues in a balanced fashion, as his book considers the debates over the ethics undergirding contemporary scientific discoveries and explorations. Should the government fund scientific projects? Is there a limit to scientific advancement? The discussion becomes especially heated in the political sphere, when advancements in current Biology are considered. At times, the rhetoric adheres to a standard Red State vs. Blue State pattern. Moreno explains that, when considering science, alternatives exist to the stagnant polarization often found in the political sphere. Moreno quotes Charles Peirce’s definition that science “does not consist so much in knowledge…as it does in diligent inquiry into truth for truth’s sake, without any sort of axe to grind, nor for the sake of delight of contemplating it, but from the impulse to penetrate into the reason of things….”
Moreno’s “The Body Politic” delves deeply into the battles over science in our era and ultimately calms our irrational fears by questioning the mad scientist trope: "The notion that science is an enemy of moral and civic education is puzzling. How then to account for the coincidence of the development of science with the growth of liberal democracy and the recognition of human rights since the eighteenth century?”
Jonathan Moreno's groundbreaking book, "The Body Politic: The Battle Over Science in America", should be required reading for all students in the sciences and all those interested in our place in the universe. Highly recommended. show less
This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.
In this book, the influential bioethicist Jonathan Moreno sets out to make the case for what he calls an “ethics of neuroscecurity.” By neurosecurity he means 1) the ways that science and technology targeted at the brain and nervous should be managed for the public good, and 2) a strategy by which democratic states must use advances in neuroscience to protect themselves from their adversaries. Neurosecurity is complicated by the principle of “dual use,” which U.S. security agencies show more officially adopted in the early 21st century of giving funding priority to projects that promise both a military and civilian payoff, particularly in economic growth. Dual use, Moreno argues, has encouraged neuroscientists to focus on the potential of their work to advance medicine and science while ignoring the potential military applications. Moreno argues that we need university scientists to become more engaged with difficult ethical questions regarding military interest in and potential application of advances in neuroscience.
Most of the book is devoted to a description of the wide variety of actual and potential applications of neuroscience to the military context – ranging from futuristic cyborg super-soldiers and chimeras, through pharmacologically enhancements to make soldiers more alert, less subject to psychic trauma, and more masterful in challenging combat situations, non-lethal weapons that operate on the nervous system to disable hostile forces (or quell popular protests), to low-tech applications of psychology in the interrogation of prisoners or influence of populations. At times, Moreno seems near to a kind of “gee whiz!” enthusiasm for the possibilities, but he is careful to note at several points that researchers are often inclined to hype. And he is always attentive to the often frightening ethical dilemmas that are raised by the militarization of neuroscience.
Given the dangers and dilemmas of what he has described, Moreno acknowledges that some will be understandably inclined to completely separate academic neuroscience from the military. But he argues that this would be a great mistake for two reasons. First, he does think that America does face dangers that make the cautious development of military applications of brain science a necessity. Second, and for him more importantly, if civilian academic scientists withdraw from involvement with the military, the military will pursue the development of these technologies within its own agencies, shielded from any public awareness and oversight. Moreno argues that the best way to avoid the sorts of ethical nightmares he spends much of the book exploring is for neuroscientists in academia to be fully engaged with the U.S. security apparatus, insisting on tht the transparency and openness that are core values of civilian science continue to operate as military applications of neuroscience are explored.
Moreno may be right that the active involvement of civilian scientists in the development of military applications of neuroscience is far less dangerous than allowing these applications to developed completely within the military, but I am far less sanguine than he is that the best norms and practices of science will withstand the pressures of involvement with the military. If the history of ethical catastrophes in science proves anything, it is that the ethical norms of science are fragile and vulnerable, and that under pressure from entanglement with government and corporate interests make academic scientists all too likely to abandon their commitment to transparency, the ethical treatment of research subjects, and other norms and values of the humane practice of science.
Whether you ultimately agree with Moreno’s conclusions, he is surely right about the dangers and dilemmas ahead, and the need for scientists and the public to remain awake and ethically engaged with neurosecurity. show less
Most of the book is devoted to a description of the wide variety of actual and potential applications of neuroscience to the military context – ranging from futuristic cyborg super-soldiers and chimeras, through pharmacologically enhancements to make soldiers more alert, less subject to psychic trauma, and more masterful in challenging combat situations, non-lethal weapons that operate on the nervous system to disable hostile forces (or quell popular protests), to low-tech applications of psychology in the interrogation of prisoners or influence of populations. At times, Moreno seems near to a kind of “gee whiz!” enthusiasm for the possibilities, but he is careful to note at several points that researchers are often inclined to hype. And he is always attentive to the often frightening ethical dilemmas that are raised by the militarization of neuroscience.
Given the dangers and dilemmas of what he has described, Moreno acknowledges that some will be understandably inclined to completely separate academic neuroscience from the military. But he argues that this would be a great mistake for two reasons. First, he does think that America does face dangers that make the cautious development of military applications of brain science a necessity. Second, and for him more importantly, if civilian academic scientists withdraw from involvement with the military, the military will pursue the development of these technologies within its own agencies, shielded from any public awareness and oversight. Moreno argues that the best way to avoid the sorts of ethical nightmares he spends much of the book exploring is for neuroscientists in academia to be fully engaged with the U.S. security apparatus, insisting on tht the transparency and openness that are core values of civilian science continue to operate as military applications of neuroscience are explored.
Moreno may be right that the active involvement of civilian scientists in the development of military applications of neuroscience is far less dangerous than allowing these applications to developed completely within the military, but I am far less sanguine than he is that the best norms and practices of science will withstand the pressures of involvement with the military. If the history of ethical catastrophes in science proves anything, it is that the ethical norms of science are fragile and vulnerable, and that under pressure from entanglement with government and corporate interests make academic scientists all too likely to abandon their commitment to transparency, the ethical treatment of research subjects, and other norms and values of the humane practice of science.
Whether you ultimately agree with Moreno’s conclusions, he is surely right about the dangers and dilemmas ahead, and the need for scientists and the public to remain awake and ethically engaged with neurosecurity. show less
This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers."The Body Politic: the Battle over Science in America," isn't really about "science" in general, but about biopolitics. Although rich in historical examples, the focus is less the battle itself and more the philosophies in biopolitics.
Substantial credit goes to the author for exploring at a more nuanced level than the often oversimplified left-right division, because it is very true that biopolitics makes strange bedfellows. As Moreno explains, "bioprogressives" include leftists who show more emphasize social equality along with libertarians who champion the innovative drive of free enterprise. "Bioconservatives" include traditionalists on the conservative side but also Greens who fear the impact of science on the environment and social justice. Unfortunately for the reader, sometimes the designation "progressive" is used in the text to mean the left-leaning philosophy, and other times "bioprogressive," which can lead to confusion.
In reading any book, but particularly any political book, it's critical to consider the author. Jonathan Moreno is both a professor of bioethics and a policy wonk, a leadership figure in the leftist organization Center for American Progress. He is informed in both science and politics. Neither the term "liberal" nor even Democratic is appropriate here, as the Identity in question is neither of those, but rather Progressive. This reviewer's leanings are sufficiently different from the Progressives (I am a libertarian bioprogressive in Moreno's classification) that it is only fair to describe Progressives in Moreno's words (with a caveat: this text is pre-publication and might have been modified): "What ties progressives together, then and now, is a desire for legal measures and the rallying of public support for political candidates who will level the playing field and promote social equality. Progressives continue to be willing to use government to represent the public interest on behalf of the weak and vulnerable."
This reviewer commends Moreno's definition, as it highlights the key commitment of Progressives to a consequentialist, or results-based, concept of justice. Unless people "have" an equal amount of everything, it is the role of a just government to take from the have's to redistribute to the have-nots (often called "under-privileged"), and to develop controls to prevent anyone from gaining more than their "fair share." By contrast, the Founding Fathers held (and codified in the legal system) a theory of justice based on fairness of process (equality under the law) rather than equality of ends (wealth/status/services). According to this "classical liberal" or libertarian view, governments must not be used as tools to equalize religion, wealth, health care, or any other end, even if the majority agree. A Republic holds certain elements of human existence as beyond even the public will to adjust, as contrasted with a pure Democracy which can change anything in the name of the Common Good by majority vote. Under the classical liberal view, all will not have equal ends because of natural diversity in talents and interests. Classical liberals believe just government should neither erect barriers nor create subsidies or privileges that reward special interests or classes of people.
To further complicate matters, people adjust ideologies as concerns become more personal, as in healthcare. In one example cited by Moreno, "the biopolitical left has inherited the autonomy notion of modern bioethics. In terms of political philosophy, the emphasis on patient autonomy fits well with 'procedural' liberalism, which emphasizes the fairness of the process itself, a concept of rationality, and neutrality about what constitutes the good life." Even for a die-hard Progressive, the Common Good might not trump one's dying grandmother. Thus some of the most contentious discussion centers around stem cell research, end of life issues, and modifications of tissues from humans and other animals for medical use.
"Bioconservatives" are concerned that the biological sciences are moving to the point that we are becoming as Gods, controlling Nature herself. Greens fear Corporations, cultural conservatives the Faithless, and neoconservatives Alienated Anarchy. The Center cannot hold. To truly understand conflicts over abortion, stem cell research, cloning, genetic modification, and the like, astute observers must recognize these have become symbols, rallying points for defending Something Greater. Moreno contributes something very important to the discussion by highlighting this insight, and while his leanings are quite apparent, he does not generally present his opponents in caricature. Strong philosophical differences are preventing us from talking to each other in this country, from calmly and pragmatically discussing the science itself, for the good of all. Legislation needs to be verbally crafted not to advance rhetoric, but rather to respond to concerns about the specific technologies themselves and their potential unintended consequences. Now that we have the power to change our biology, we must integrate this new reality with political philosophy. We must develop an ethical and reasonable response to the arguments of the transhumanists, who want to use technology not only to treat disease or disability, but to "enhance" and transcend the human organism.
In an example *not* given by Moreno, just as leftists and libertarians have come together on school choice (to address unfair process and ends from location-based education), they can come together to address concerns about biotechnology, but only if the nuances of the common situation and of the future technology are discussed honestly in themselves. America needs more bridging voices to bring together diverse groups for respectful discourse and to find common ground when possible. Bioprogressives must honestly address the fact that technology does present legitimate moral questions, rather than avoiding the discussion by painting bioconservatives as undereducated, anti-science Neanderthals. Bioconservatives must stop painting scientists and health care companies with a 666 when most are genuinely concerned for their fellow man.
This reader did not always agree with the author's conclusions, but the prose was informative and pleasant to read. There were briefly occasions when the text strayed from the topic in praise of Progressivism as a general movement, but such occasions were limited. I would have liked more relevant discussion of the value of genetic diversity and how a single mutation can have both beneficial and detrimental impact depending on context (e.g., sickle cell, which defends against malaria). Moreno touches on the revealing cases of those who would "fix" deafness and dwarfism versus the views of some families with those conditions that they should be allowed to preserve their own different ways of being. This question is particularly relevant in the age of psychoactive and lifestyle medications; could any deviation from the norm be targeted for manipulation in the name of social unity? Moreno talks about the dangers of the rich using biotechnology for greater inequality, but less discussed are the negative impacts if policies force us all to become "more equal" even when we do not wish it.
This is not a perfect book, but it is one well worth reading. The author's background and gift with words allow him to present many relevant historical examples, philosophical allusions, and political insights. Regardless of one's position on the issues, this book is a contribution toward greater understanding. show less
Substantial credit goes to the author for exploring at a more nuanced level than the often oversimplified left-right division, because it is very true that biopolitics makes strange bedfellows. As Moreno explains, "bioprogressives" include leftists who show more emphasize social equality along with libertarians who champion the innovative drive of free enterprise. "Bioconservatives" include traditionalists on the conservative side but also Greens who fear the impact of science on the environment and social justice. Unfortunately for the reader, sometimes the designation "progressive" is used in the text to mean the left-leaning philosophy, and other times "bioprogressive," which can lead to confusion.
In reading any book, but particularly any political book, it's critical to consider the author. Jonathan Moreno is both a professor of bioethics and a policy wonk, a leadership figure in the leftist organization Center for American Progress. He is informed in both science and politics. Neither the term "liberal" nor even Democratic is appropriate here, as the Identity in question is neither of those, but rather Progressive. This reviewer's leanings are sufficiently different from the Progressives (I am a libertarian bioprogressive in Moreno's classification) that it is only fair to describe Progressives in Moreno's words (with a caveat: this text is pre-publication and might have been modified): "What ties progressives together, then and now, is a desire for legal measures and the rallying of public support for political candidates who will level the playing field and promote social equality. Progressives continue to be willing to use government to represent the public interest on behalf of the weak and vulnerable."
This reviewer commends Moreno's definition, as it highlights the key commitment of Progressives to a consequentialist, or results-based, concept of justice. Unless people "have" an equal amount of everything, it is the role of a just government to take from the have's to redistribute to the have-nots (often called "under-privileged"), and to develop controls to prevent anyone from gaining more than their "fair share." By contrast, the Founding Fathers held (and codified in the legal system) a theory of justice based on fairness of process (equality under the law) rather than equality of ends (wealth/status/services). According to this "classical liberal" or libertarian view, governments must not be used as tools to equalize religion, wealth, health care, or any other end, even if the majority agree. A Republic holds certain elements of human existence as beyond even the public will to adjust, as contrasted with a pure Democracy which can change anything in the name of the Common Good by majority vote. Under the classical liberal view, all will not have equal ends because of natural diversity in talents and interests. Classical liberals believe just government should neither erect barriers nor create subsidies or privileges that reward special interests or classes of people.
To further complicate matters, people adjust ideologies as concerns become more personal, as in healthcare. In one example cited by Moreno, "the biopolitical left has inherited the autonomy notion of modern bioethics. In terms of political philosophy, the emphasis on patient autonomy fits well with 'procedural' liberalism, which emphasizes the fairness of the process itself, a concept of rationality, and neutrality about what constitutes the good life." Even for a die-hard Progressive, the Common Good might not trump one's dying grandmother. Thus some of the most contentious discussion centers around stem cell research, end of life issues, and modifications of tissues from humans and other animals for medical use.
"Bioconservatives" are concerned that the biological sciences are moving to the point that we are becoming as Gods, controlling Nature herself. Greens fear Corporations, cultural conservatives the Faithless, and neoconservatives Alienated Anarchy. The Center cannot hold. To truly understand conflicts over abortion, stem cell research, cloning, genetic modification, and the like, astute observers must recognize these have become symbols, rallying points for defending Something Greater. Moreno contributes something very important to the discussion by highlighting this insight, and while his leanings are quite apparent, he does not generally present his opponents in caricature. Strong philosophical differences are preventing us from talking to each other in this country, from calmly and pragmatically discussing the science itself, for the good of all. Legislation needs to be verbally crafted not to advance rhetoric, but rather to respond to concerns about the specific technologies themselves and their potential unintended consequences. Now that we have the power to change our biology, we must integrate this new reality with political philosophy. We must develop an ethical and reasonable response to the arguments of the transhumanists, who want to use technology not only to treat disease or disability, but to "enhance" and transcend the human organism.
In an example *not* given by Moreno, just as leftists and libertarians have come together on school choice (to address unfair process and ends from location-based education), they can come together to address concerns about biotechnology, but only if the nuances of the common situation and of the future technology are discussed honestly in themselves. America needs more bridging voices to bring together diverse groups for respectful discourse and to find common ground when possible. Bioprogressives must honestly address the fact that technology does present legitimate moral questions, rather than avoiding the discussion by painting bioconservatives as undereducated, anti-science Neanderthals. Bioconservatives must stop painting scientists and health care companies with a 666 when most are genuinely concerned for their fellow man.
This reader did not always agree with the author's conclusions, but the prose was informative and pleasant to read. There were briefly occasions when the text strayed from the topic in praise of Progressivism as a general movement, but such occasions were limited. I would have liked more relevant discussion of the value of genetic diversity and how a single mutation can have both beneficial and detrimental impact depending on context (e.g., sickle cell, which defends against malaria). Moreno touches on the revealing cases of those who would "fix" deafness and dwarfism versus the views of some families with those conditions that they should be allowed to preserve their own different ways of being. This question is particularly relevant in the age of psychoactive and lifestyle medications; could any deviation from the norm be targeted for manipulation in the name of social unity? Moreno talks about the dangers of the rich using biotechnology for greater inequality, but less discussed are the negative impacts if policies force us all to become "more equal" even when we do not wish it.
This is not a perfect book, but it is one well worth reading. The author's background and gift with words allow him to present many relevant historical examples, philosophical allusions, and political insights. Regardless of one's position on the issues, this book is a contribution toward greater understanding. show less
This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.Lists
Awards
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 18
- Members
- 360
- Popularity
- #66,629
- Rating
- 3.7
- Reviews
- 40
- ISBNs
- 33
