PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
This article considers the sort of diversity in perspective appropriate for a presidential commission on bioethics, and by implication, high-level governmental commissions on ethics more generally. It takes as its point of comparison the respective reports on human cloning produced by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, appointed by President Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush\'s President\'s Council on Bioethics, under the leadership of its original chair, Leon Kass. I argue that the Clinton Commission Report exemplifies forensic diversity (the type of diversity between contesting parties in a legal case), while the Kass Council Report exemplifies academic diversity (the diversity found in a medieval disputatio). Drawing upon Thomas Aquinas, I argue that the type of diversity most appropriate for such advisory bodies is deliberative diversity, which facilitates the President\'s process of taking counsel. After considering their respective charges, I suggest that neither the Clinton Commission nor the Kass Council possessed an adequate degree of deliberative diversity for their respective tasks.
摘要：
本文认为这种观点的多样性适合于总统生物伦理学委员会，言下之意,更广泛地说，高级政府道德委员会。它以国家生物伦理学咨询委员会编写的有关人类克隆的报告为比较点，由比尔·克林顿总统任命,和乔治·W·布什的总统生命伦理委员会，在原主席的领导下,里昂·卡斯.我认为，克林顿委员会的报告体现了法医多样性（法律案件中诉讼当事方之间的多样性），而卡斯理事会报告则体现了学术多样性（在中世纪争议中发现的多样性）。借鉴托马斯·阿奎那，我认为，最适合此类咨询机构的多样性类型是审议性多样性，这促进了总统的咨询过程。在考虑了他们各自的指控后，我建议克林顿委员会和卡斯理事会都不具备足够程度的审议多样性来执行各自的任务。
