Final Report (all chapters)

The rationale for including stakeholders that are not negatively and significantly affected by
the decision to list (or not to) a species as endangered is murky. Is it legitimate for national
environmental organizations to intervene in what many would consider strictly local matters? Is
it enough for these organizations to declare themselves interested parties by virtue of their
interest and commitment to environmental causes? Good arguments can be made in favor of and
against their participation, the latter by virtue of the simple fact that these organizations are
intervening in highly localized political conflicts. But one could argue that the loss of a species
cannot be regarded simply as another instance of a local political controversy. As we have
argued earlier, the fact that the protecting Yosemite Valley directly affects only a very narrow
segment of the general public does not make protecting it a local issue. In addition, national
environmental groups bring resources and expertise to the table often not available to local
groups. In this sense, they contribute to enlarging the pool of possible arguments pro and con
listing a species as endangered, and may contribute to correcting a political failure.
The examples discussed in this section are representative of a wide range of political
controversies, including those triggered by advances in reproductive medicine and biomedical
research. Our “genetic heritage” and the great outdoors both are the products of billions of years
of natural evolution. And just as it is utterly foolish for anyone to suggest that the Yosemite
Valley or the Grand Canyon could be “improved,” so is it equally foolish for scientists to claim
that the human genome can be improved in more than a marginal sense. Both the magnificence
of the great outdoors and the beauty of the double helix inspire respect and awe. Yet respect for
the great outdoors and for our genetic heritage does not exclude enjoying these national
treasures, nor does it preclude scientific research. In the case of our national parks, we have
found acceptable ways to reconcile enjoying nature with the need to protect spectacular
landscapes against degradation and destruction. Americans are rightly proud of their great
outdoors. But it must be recognized that only national leaders inspired by an undiluted notion of
public interest made the protection of these national treasures possible.
Our discussion has shown that the concept of stakeholders solves as many problems as it
creates. While organized interest groups are a reality that no politician or administrator can
afford to ignore, reducing the concept of the public to a more or less arbitrary group of
stakeholders is a pragmatic approach with clear conceptual and operational limitations. For this
reason, in chapter 12, we propose mechanisms of public consultation explicitly designed to elicit
input both from organized interest groups and from individual citizens.
10.6 Scientific Literacy and Public Participation
Given the rather modest levels of scientific literacy in the general population, it may seem
implausible that modern bioethical controversies should be resolved by resorting to broad public
262