{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027701778385772913, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01709986320109439, 'mean_word_length': 5.106471816283925, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Once and Future Biomedical Ethics BOard

A Once and Future Biomedical Ethics Board The congressional Biomedical Ethics Board and its attendant Advisory Committee were convinced in November 1985, but may be stillborn by October of 1988. This outcome would certainly surprise those members of the Advisory Committee already appointed to what most consider a standing committee of Congress. The Board, which is comprised of twelve members of Congress, was established by the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 to report to Congress on ethical issues in the delivery of health care and biomedical and behavioral research. Its specific mandate was to address the protection of human subjects of such research and to monitor research and developments in genetic engineering (including recombinant DNA techniques). To achieve these ends, the Board was empowered to select an Advisory Committee, whose members would be responsible for conducting studies, preparing reports, and perhaps holding public hearings. Congress authorized the appropriation of up to $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1986, $2,500,000 for fiscal year 1987, and $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1988 to enable the Board and the Committee to carry out their functions. The Advisory Committee was to have been composed of fourteen members, twelve "experts" in various areas of biomedical ethics, including clinicians and academics, and two "citizen members," "with an interest in biomedical ethics but who possess no specific experties." Its members were to serve on a volunteer basis (reimbursed for expenses only). What has happened since this beginning? As of April 1988, the fourteen places on the Advisory Committee have not been formally filled and not $1 of the money has been spent. After a great deal of argument, the twelve experts have been approved. The two citizen members have not. According to Mona Sarfaty, senior health advisor to the Senate Labor Committee, the problem has been that selection of members of the Advisory Committee has been "endlessly bogged down in politics." The chief issue, it seems, has been balanced representation on abortion. Sarfaty says that some Board members, including Sen. Dave Durenberger, and Reps. Thomas Bliley, Thomas Luken, and Thomas Tauke have insisted that at least five memberss of the Advisory Committee explicitly favor a right-to-life position. Steve Moore, legislative aide to Durenberger, rejects that analysis is "name-calling." Durenberger proposed a "compromise slate" in which every member of the Board would be allowed to select one member of the Advisory Committee. Although this proposal ultimately failed, Moore claimed that it nearly resolved the selection controversy. In Moore's view, the problem lies with the nature of the issues involved: "The Board was established to deal with sensitive issues in a committee setting rather than try to fight them out on the floor of the Senator or House. …