Medical Biotechnologies: Are There Effective Ethical Arguments for Policy Making?

  • Ruiping FanEmail author
  • Erika Yu
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 102)


The intensity of moral controversy over the development of groundbreaking medical biotechnologies can hardly be overstated.1 Studies conducted by scientists in genetics, cloning, and stem-cell research have often become the news headlines that are not only exciting but also disquieting. On the one hand, by gaining new knowledge and technologies in areas such as genetic engineering or stem-cell therapy, biomedical scientists hold a great hope that a number of debilitating but currently incurable conditions, such as cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, Alzheimer’s disease, spinal-cord injury, and diabetes, can in time be prevented or cured. If the technologies mature and expand, a healthier-thanever population can be expected.


Assisted Reproductive Technology Ethical Argument Child Relation Moral Experience Human Cloning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Buchanan, A., et al. (2000). From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2005), Regenerative medicine and Nanomedicine Initiative, Available at: <> (accessed on April 2, 2006).
  3. Confucius (2002). Analects: A Bilingual Edition, D.C. Lau (Trans.), Chinese University Press, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  4. Dworkin, R.M. (2000). Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Engelhardt, H.T., Jr. (2000). The Foundations of Christian Bioethics, Swets & Zeitlinger, Exton, PA .Google Scholar
  6. Green, R.M. (2001). The Human Embryo Research Debates: Bioethics in the Vortex of Controversy, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Habermas, J. (2003). The Future of Human Nature, Polity, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Mencius (2003). Mencius: A Bilingual Edition, D. C. Lau (Trans.), Chinese University Press, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  9. National Research Council (2002). Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  10. Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Robertson, J.A. (1999). ‘Ethics and Policy in Embryonic Stem Cell Research,’ Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 9, 2, 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. The Doctrine of Mean (1971), in J. Legge (Trans.), The Four Books, Dover Publications, New York.Google Scholar
  13. The Great Learning (1971), in J. Legge (Trans.), The Four Books, Dover Publications, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Wolterstorff, Nicholas (1997). ‘Why We Should Reject What Liberalism Tells Us About Speaking and Acting in Public for Religious Reasons,’ in P.J. Weithman (Ed.), Religion and Contemporary Liberalism (pp. 162–181), University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public and Social AdministrationCity University of Hong KongHong KongPRC
  2. 2.formerly with the Governance in Asia Research Centre (GARC)City University of Hong KongKowloonChina

Personalised recommendations