Peter Lawler has written a must-read account at The Weekly Standard of The Chosen One’s termination of the Bioethics Council.  Bush’s creation of the Council was the greatest indication of the President’s real thinking on science and the public good.  Far from ‘politicizing science,’ Bush brought together a group of broadly trained, highly intelligent people to debate the implications of various policy proposals under the leadership of Leon Kass of the University of Chicago.

For Obama, a valuable Council does nothing but offer advice to the administration. The Bush Council was actually given the additional mandate of public education, of developing a national dialogue on controversial bioethical issues. It’s with that Socratic second mandate in mind that President Bush chose for his first chairman a man trained in medicine, natural science, and the wisdom about being human embodied in the Great Books from Plato through Shakespeare to Genesis–Leon Kass. For Obama, it would appear, there’s no need for such moral and political discussion or such “humanistic” guidance because the experts know the nonideological and objective answer to the key questions that face us in our high-tech and increasingly biotech world. Personal opinion is trumped by what the “studies show,” and public opinion should be guided toward a consensus based on those studies.

Obama plans to reconstitute the council with specialists in a forum directed toward “practical policy options” rather than philosophically informed debate.  The drive for ‘consensus,’ here as elsewhere in this administration, really means squelching dissent.  Over half of Bush’s council opposed his position on embryonic stem-cell research, for instance; I imagine the odds will be rather long on finding even two dissenters on such a question when the new council convenes.

Colleen Carroll Campbell assesses the move succinctly:

Obama’s desire to see his policies backed by expert “consensus” more likely will be realized with a new commission composed of like-minded political liberals steeped in utilitarianism than with the brainy, diverse and unpredictable crew that populated the now-defunct council. Ensuring uniformity of thought among one’s ethical advisers may make the president’s job easier, but it will do little to benefit the diverse nation that he serves.

The President is perfectly within his rights to reshape the council, of course, but we have lost something rare and precious in Washington:  a forum for thoughtful, sustained engagement with the most pressing issues of our day bringing together figures from across the political spectrum.