| This dissertation examines the President's Council on Bioethics (Council), under the Chairmanship of Leon Kass (2001-2005). Its purpose is to advance our understanding about the relationships between philosophy, policy, and science within democratic societies. The dissertation treats the Council as a topos or place interweaving perennial themes, contingent circumstances, and multiple perspectives. Comprising more than simply a case study, the topical approach adopted here explicitly recognizes the fluidity of social and epistemological categories, tracing the Council's work across disciplinary boundaries and historical contexts. Part I sets the Council within the tradition of U.S. public bioethics committees, provides a detailed empirical account of its strategies, outcomes, and membership, and surveys its public image. Part II provides a more in-depth account of the origins and meaning of the Council's "richer bioethics." It explains how this distinctive practice was designed to correct for the inadequacies of previous bioethics commissions, and by extension, essential aspects of the modern worldview. This part concludes by arguing that the Council's classical ethical rationality enriches pluralist spheres of public debate by expanding our moral vocabulary. Part III builds from this deeper understanding of the Council's work in order to address its wider significance for society-science relations, moving beyond the world of bioethics to address the contexts of federal advisory bodies, science policy, and public philosophy. It assesses the Council in light of charges of politicization and makes recommendations for future ethics advisory committees. This part also retrospectively makes sense of the Council's work as a form of "humanities policy" that proves to be relevant in surprising and important ways. The final chapter develops the capstone concepts of "philosopher bureaucrats" and "conversation," which stem from a discussion of public philosophers and public philosophy. |
