For Good Science, You Need Engaged Citizens Hastings Center Scholars' Commentary in Scientific American
“Science is back” has become a Biden administration slogan. “But listening to scientists is only the first step—and only a partial step, given the deep distrust many Americans have for experts” write Hastings Center research scholars Gregory Kaebnick and Michael Gusmano in Scientific American. “We must improve how ordinary citizens help shape science policy.” Voting is only the first step. “What we need are opportunities for Americans to talk and listen to each other . . . about the values and facts that should guide policy. Americans are not as divided as elected officials, and where they disagree, deliberation can reduce the distance between them.” Read the commentary. Kaebnick and Gusmano drew on findings from a recent Hastings Center special report, “Democracy in Crisis: Civic Learning and the Reconstruction of Common Purpose.”
Should Medicare Pay for the Controversial New Alzheimer's Drug?
That’s the big question explored by Hastings Center research scholars Michael Gusmano and Karen Maschke in a commentary in MedPage Today. “From a legal standpoint, the Medicare program is not required to pay for all medical items and services approved by the FDA,” they write. Medicare reviews clinical evidence to determine whether an item or service is “reasonable and necessary” for diagnosing or treating a condition or improving a patient’s functioning. In the case of Aduhelm, the Alzheimer’s drug, Medicare may “act as an important fail-safe against this questionable FDA approval by refusing to pay . . . or paying only when Medicare beneficiaries enroll in a clinical trial to study clinical outcomes,” they write. “But a longer-term solution must involve strengthening the FDA’s evidentiary standards for product approvals, for drug developers to conduct rigorous clinical trials that focus on clinical outcomes, and to accept negative findings—and for all patients and their advocates to demand no less. Read the commentary. Maschke and Gusmano are the authors of Debating Modern Medical Technologies: The Politics of Safety, Effectiveness, and Patient Access.
Disability as Metaphor
The way we talk about disability matters; phrases like “the blind leading the blind,” “crippling poverty,” or “falling on deaf ears” reinforce damaging associations between disability and undesirable states of being. Liz Bowen, the Rice Family Fellow in Bioethics and the Humanities at The Hastings Center explored the use of metaphors characterizing disability in a recent article in English Literary History, explaining that these associations correspond to real-world biases and inequities. Read more. Bowen is a co-organizer of “The Art of Flourishing: Conversations on Disability,” a Hastings Center public events series supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Upcoming Events
"Do Justice and Equity Concerns Bolster or Hinder the Case for the Use of Gene Drive Applications?" a panel with Hastings Center research scholar Carolyn Neuhaus organized by the Foundation for the NIH GeneConvene Global Collaborative and McMaster University's Institute on Ethics & Policy for Innovation. August 10, 10 AM EST.
"Democratic Deliberation and Gene Editing," a presentation by Hastings Center research scholars Michael Gusmano and Karen Maschke at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. September 29.
The Hastings Center seeks to ensure responsible health and science policy and practice. We work to secure the wisest possible use of emerging technologies and fair, compassionate, and just health care for people across their lifespan.
We strongly value your privacy and would never sell, give, or otherwise share your information. Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
