Conservative bioethicists often provide intellectual ammunition for US politicians on major issues ranging from stem-cell research to right-to-die decisions. Now several prominent researchers are joining forces to promote different scientific values in public debate.

The Terri Schiavo case polarized opinions on life support and brought bioethics to the forefront of politics. Credit: C. O'MEARA/AP

Arguing that conservative bioethics is out of step with most Americans, the group is forming a 'progressive' movement to influence discussions of scientific and medical topics. ‘It is important for progressive bioethics to enter the political fray,’ says Arthur Caplan, an ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

On 3 October, members of the group set out key elements of their approach at a meeting at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think-tank in Washington DC that is helping to start the movement. They define themselves in part by what they oppose: the conservative stance embraced by Republican political leaders, by right-leaning think-tanks, and by the President's Council on Bioethics under Leon Kass, who led the council until 1 October (see Nature 437, 307; 2005).

Progressive bioethics has to talk about those who are left out.

But the progressive group hopes to emulate the conservatives' success in influencing public policy. Conservative bioethicists have set up a network of think-tanks and journals that issue position papers, book media appearances and hold meetings with politicians.

These strategies have shaped the Republican response in debates over stem-cell research and the right-to-die case of Florida's Terri Schiavo. Caplan and others were outraged when Republican leaders fought to keep Schiavo on life support against her husband's wishes. ‘Nothing could make clearer the difference between progressive and conservative bioethics,’ says Caplan.

Ethicists at the meeting say that their approach is optimistic about science and technology. ‘Progressive bioethics opens itself to change,’ says Alta Charo of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The conservative approach, they argue, often focuses on how technology could adversely affect the essence of humanity. In a letter accompanying a 2002 report from the President's Council on Bioethics, for example, Kass told the US president that human cloning ‘carries with it a number of troubling consequences for children, family, and society’.

The progressive bioethicists say they plan to study topics not often covered by conservatives — such as inequities in the healthcare system. These inequities were highlighted by Hurricane Katrina, which left thousands of poor African–Americans stranded without federal assistance for almost a week. ‘Progressive bioethics has to talk about those who are left behind and left out,’ says Vanessa Gamble of Tuskegee University in Alabama. And the group hopes to avoid the political missteps that have sometimes resulted from conservative approaches. Public opinion polls found that the Republican efforts to keep Schiavo alive were unpopular. The Schiavo debate may have influenced the Center for American Progress to become more involved in ethics, adds Jonathan Moreno, who was on sabbatical there at the time. ‘I think they saw that it was useful to have someone like me around to put a different frame on these issues than was being set out by the conservative media,’ says Moreno, now a fellow at the centre.

Leaders in the progressive-bioethics movement welcome both Democrats and Republicans, saying they think ethical issues should remain bipartisan. But the group's members have supported positions taken by many Democratic politicians. And the president of the Center for American Progress, John Podesta, is a key Democratic strategist who served as chief of staff when Bill Clinton was president of the United States.

‘There's a need to re-establish the scientific voice as a voice of fact and reason in the public dialogue,’ claims Podesta.

But even he isn't sure whether bioethical issues are important enough to sway the votes of Americans. That, he says, ‘is a political question that will work itself out over the next couple of years’.