“ Journalists have heaped praise on Beyond Therapy for its eloquence, but what little comment bioethicists and scientists have offered has had a decidedly grumpy tone. David Magnus of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics has written that Beyond Therapy fails because the "council members have been too blinded by their own conservative ideology." University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan told Nature Biotechnology that it was "a politically conservative report" that espouses "the quasi-religious view that the natural is good." Elizabeth Blackburn, the former council member, has objected that the report implies that immortality is the goal of age-retardation research. The editors of Nature Biotechnology, in a mocking editorial titled "Beyond Belief," simply parodied the abstract style of the report and concluded by saying, "There are times for getting to the damn point."

It's difficult to know what to make of these comments. The stated aim of the report is to produce philosophical reflection, not advice. The report issues no guidelines or policy recommendations, which is why it is an odd target for left versus right debates. Instead, it reads like a scholarly book. ….The careful philosophical style of the report parodied by the editors of Nature Biotechnology is, admittedly, unlike any government document I have ever read, but I count that as a strong point in its favor.

What is striking about the criticisms of the council is that they come from across the political spectrum. The attacks from the political left are so obviously rooted in a hatred of all things related to President Bush that it's difficult to determine if they warrant our consideration. As Elliot points out, “[Leon Kass] has had the misfortune to chair the President's Council on Bioethics under a man who inspires more revulsion among academics than any president since Richard Nixon.”

But the right, particularly libertarians, have been even more vehement in their condemnation. Glenn Reynolds and Virginia Postrel have been the most fecund critics, posting numerous hit pieces over the past week alone. Their opinion, however, goes beyond the typical liberatarian distrust of government oversight into an almost religious faith in technological progress. In their techno-eschatology, the good that can come from biotechnology should salve all ethical qualms. While heading for the future we should keep an eye on the past. And if history has taught us anything it is to be cautious:

The critical ideological divide may be less right versus left than techno-skepticism versus techno-enthusiasm. Americans tend to embrace technology, but it is worth remembering that the history of technology is not one of allayed progress. It is also the history of what Edward Tenner has called "the revenge of unintended consequences"—sophisticated car alarms that erupt so often that nobody trusts them, paperless offices that generate more paper than ever before, kudzu vines introduced to prevent soil erosion that wind up choking trees and enveloping entire farms. When we ourselves become the objects of technological control, the stakes multiply dramatically. As the council understands, we need to approach that prospect not just with caution but with humility.

The fears of Reynolds and Postrel shouldn’t be dismissed without a hearing. But they should also keep in mind that ethical reflection will not necessarily lead to a bio-luddism. Biotechnology offers both perils and promise and we should be optimistic about technological progress. But we should also head into the future with our eyes wide open.