It seems like every day society faces a new ethical challenge raised by a scientific innovation. Human genetic engineering, stem cell research, face transplantation, synthetic biology - all were science fiction only a few decades ago, but now are all reality. How do we as a society decide whether these technologies are ethical? For decades professional bioethicists have served as mediators between a busy public and its decision-makers, helping people understand their own ethical concerns, framing arguments, discrediting illogical claims, and supporting promising ones. These bioethicists play an instrumental role in guiding governments' ethical policy decisions, consulting for hospitals faced with vital decisions, and advising institutions that conduct research on humans.
Although the bioethics profession has functioned effectively for many years, it is now in crisis. Policy-makers are less inclined to take the advice of bioethics professionals, with many observers saying that bioethics debates have simply become partisan politics with dueling democratic and republican bioethicists. While this crisis is contained to the task of recommending ethical policy to the government, there is risk that it will spread to the other tasks conducted by bioethicists.
To understand how this crisis came about and to arrive at a solution, John H. Evans closely examines the history of the bioethics profession. Bioethics debates were originally dominated by theologians, but came to be dominated by the emerging bioethics profession due to the subtle and slow involvement of the government as the primary consumer of bioethical arguments. After the 1980s, however, the views of the government changed, making bioethical arguments less legitimate. Exploring the sociological processes that lead to the evolution of bioethics to where it is today, Evans proposes a radical solution to the crisis. Bioethicists must give up its inessential functions, change the way they make ethical arguments, and make conscious and explicit steps toward re-establishing the profession's legitimacy as a mediator between the public and government decision-makers.
"John Evans provides a trenchant reconstruction of the waxing and waning influence of theology on the bioethics canon, as well as an original proposal for a social science-based bioethics. This book will fascinate and instruct anyone interested in where we have been and where we should go in our societal conversation about deep human values."- Jonathan Moreno, University of Pennsylvania

It seems like every day society faces a new ethical challenge raised by a scientific innovation. Human genetic engineering, stem cell research, face transplantation, synthetic biology - all were science fiction only a few decades ago, but now are all reality. How do we as a society decide whether these technologies are ethical? For decades professional bioethicists have served as mediators between a busy public and its decision-makers, helping people understand their own ethical concerns, framing arguments, discrediting illogical claims, and supporting promising ones. These bioethicists play an instrumental role in guiding governments' ethical policy decisions, consulting for hospitals faced with vital decisions, and advising institutions that conduct research on humans. Although the bioethics profession has functioned effectively for many years, it is now in crisis. Policy-makers are less inclined to take the advice of bioethics professionals, with many observers saying that bioethics debates have simply become partisan politics with dueling democratic and republican bioethicists. While this crisis is contained to the task of recommending ethical policy to the government, there is risk that it will spread to the other tasks conducted by bioethicists. To understand how this crisis came about and to arrive at a solution, John H. Evans closely examines the history of the bioethics profession. Bioethics debates were originally dominated by theologians, but came to be dominated by the emerging bioethics profession due to the subtle and slow involvement of the government as the primary consumer of bioethical arguments. After the 1980s, however, the views of the government changed, making bioethical arguments less legitimate. Exploring the sociological processes that lead to the evolution of bioethics to where it is today, Evans proposes a radical solution to the crisis. Bioethicists must give up its inessential functions, change the way they make ethical arguments, and make conscious and explicit steps toward re-establishing the profession's legitimacy as a mediator between the public and government decision-makers.

What is a human? Are humans those with human DNA, those in possession of traits like rationality, or those made in the image of God? The debate over what makes human beings unique has raged for centuries. Many think that if society accepts the wrong definition of what it is to be human, people will look at their neighbor as more of an animal, object, or machine-making maltreatment more likely. In the longest running claim, for over 150 years critics have claimed that taking a Darwinist definition results in people treating each other more like animals. Despite their seriousness, these claims have never been empirically investigated. In this groundbreaking book John H. Evans shows that the definitions promoted by biologists and philosophers actually are associated with less support for human rights. Members of the public who agree with these definitions are less willing to sacrifice to stop genocides and are more supportive of buying organs from poor people, of experimenting on prisoners against their will, and of torturing people to potentially save lives. It appears that the critics are right. However, Evans finds that few Americans agree with these academic definitions. Looking at how most of the public defines humanity, we see a much more nuanced picture. In a fascinating account, he shows that the dominant definitions are unlikely to lead to human rights abuses. He concludes that the critics are right about the definitions of a human promoted by academic biologists and philosophers, and are therefore justified in their vigilance. However, because at present few Americans agree with these definitions, the academic definitions would have to spread much more extensively before impacting how the general public acts. Evans' book is a major corrective to the more than century-long debate about the impact of definitions of a human.

Technology evolves at a dazzling speed, and nowhere more so than in the field of genetic engineering, where the possibility of directly changing the genes of one's children is quickly becoming a reality. The public is rightly concerned, but interestingly, they have not had much to say about the implications of recent advancements in human genetics.
"Playing God?" asks why and explores the social forces that have led to the thinning out of public debate over human genetic engineering. John H. Evans contends that the problem lies in the structure of the debate itself. Disputes over human genetic engineering concern the means for achieving assumed ends, rather than being a healthy discussion about the ends themselves. According to Evans, this change in focus occurred as the jurisdiction over the debate shifted from scientists to bioethicists, a change which itself was caused by the rise of the bureaucratic state as the authority in such matters. The implications of this timely study are twofold. Evans not only explores how decisions about the ethics of human genetic engineering are made, but also shows how the structure of the debate has led to the technological choices we now face.

What is the cultural approach to sociology? Although there are many paths to understanding society, all branches of sociology integrate meaning. A cultural approach requires an intellectual sensitivity toward meaning, a way of putting emphasis on the human experience. Whether studying race and ethnicity or the sociology of economics, each realm of human activities studied by social scientists is cultural.

Taking this meaning-centered approach, the editors of this special volume of "The ANNALS" have gathered a diverse group of culture-minded sociologists, whose work encompasses a wide spectrum of topics from the study of large institutions, such as the economy and the legal system, to small group interactions. The editors highlight the common cultural thread that runs through a wide repertoire of areas such as the arts, pop culture, organization, education, race and ethnicity, sexuality, science and technology, social inequalities, sociology of law, economic sociology, and microsociology.

Each of the authors featured in this issue studies a different subfield of the discipline. Yet collectively, these diverse papers clearly demonstrate the constant interplay between culture and society and how the cultural approach has been a highly productive perspective informing empirical research - throughout all of the branches of sociology.

In addition to pointing up the pervasiveness of meaning throughout the discipline, this collaborative collection includes the following themes:

- Culture implicated in the exercise of power- The constitutive role of culture - Recent empirical sociological research that positions culture both as an orientation and a subject matter inthe context of American Sociology

Students and scholars of all specialty subjects will find this synergetic volume of "The ANNALS" offers a unique collaborative approach and a clearer understanding of how to use culture in different sociological subfields - especially in the translation from the intellectual background of one subfield to another.

A free ebook version of this title is available through Luminos, University of California Press's Open Access publishing program for monographs. Visit www.luminosoa.org to learn more. In a time when conservative politicians challenge the irrefutability of scientific findings such as climate change, it is more important than ever to understand the conflict at the heart of the "religion vs. science" debates unfolding in the public sphere. In this groundbreaking work, John H. Evans reveals that, with a few limited exceptions, even the most conservative religious Americans accept science's ability to make factual claims about the world. However, many religious people take issue with the morality implicitly promoted by some forms of science. Using clear and engaging scholarship, Evans upends the prevailing notion that there is a fundamental conflict over the way that scientists and religious people make claims about nature and argues that only by properly understanding moral conflict between contemporary religion and science will we be able to contribute to a more productive interaction between these two great institutions.

"For those who thought Mainline Protestantism was well on its way to extinction, this collection provides interesting--possibly even shocking--reading. It points to new life arising out of old structures and changing modes of engagement with the culture. The message the reader takes away is that while the future for this religious tradition will not look like its past, it has a future. The best book written lately on this topic."--Wade Clark Roof, author of "Spiritual Marketplace: BabyBoomers and the Remaking of American Religion

"An important contribution to our understanding of the public influence of mainline Protestantism. This well-written and expansive book reveals how socially, civically, and politically active mainline Protestantism continues to be in American society, contrary to much conventional wisdom. Yet it shows the mainline influence as having a particular character, different from that of other religious traditions. Mainline Protestantism has, without justification, been understudied lately. This landmark book puts it back on the map and will generate discussion and inquiry for years to come."--Christian Smith, author of "The Secular Revolution

"This important book provides a balanced, critical, yet genuinely appreciative analysis of the role of mainline Protestantism's public role. It is a stimulating and refreshing change from the mainline Protestant 'bashing' of the past three decades. In a time of increased calls for religious organizations to be involved in public life, readers will be helped to understand both the possibilities and limits of such involvement as the authors examine the practices and policies of the most publicly engaged of America's religiousfamilies."--Jackson W. Carroll, coauthor of "Bridging Divided Worlds: Congregations and Generational Cultures

"An essential book for anyone interested in the public nature and works of the Protestant mainline. The vast majority of American citizens believe that churches have a public role. But they disagree about what that role should be. Help has arrived."--Jean Bethke Elshtain, author of "Jane Addams and the Dream of American Democracy

"This book is a comprehensive overview of mainline Protestantism's contribution to the public role of religion during the last three decades of the 20th century. It provides a firm platform from which to guide our vision in the new millennium."--Donald E. Miller, author of "Reinventing American Protestantism: Christianity in the New Millennium

Technology evolves at a dazzling speed, and nowhere more so than in the field of genetic engineering, where the possibility of directly changing the genes of one's children is quickly becoming a reality. The public is rightly concerned, but interestingly, they have not had much to say about the implications of recent advancements in human genetics.
"Playing God?" asks why and explores the social forces that have led to the thinning out of public debate over human genetic engineering. John H. Evans contends that the problem lies in the structure of the debate itself. Disputes over human genetic engineering concern the means for achieving assumed ends, rather than being a healthy discussion about the ends themselves. According to Evans, this change in focus occurred as the jurisdiction over the debate shifted from scientists to bioethicists, a change which itself was caused by the rise of the bureaucratic state as the authority in such matters. The implications of this timely study are twofold. Evans not only explores how decisions about the ethics of human genetic engineering are made, but also shows how the structure of the debate has led to the technological choices we now face.

Scientific breakthroughs have led us to a point where soon we will be able to make specific choices about the genetic makeup of our offspring. In fact, this reality has arrived - and it is only a matter of time before the technology becomes widespread. Much like past arguments about stem-cell research, the coming debate over these reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs) will be both political and, for many people, religious. In order to understand how the debate will play out in the United States, John H. Evans conducted the first in-depth study of the claims made about RGTs by religious people from across the political spectrum, and "Contested Reproduction" is the stimulating result. Some of the opinions Evans documents are familiar, but others - such as the idea that certain genetic conditions produce a 'meaningful suffering' that is, ultimately, desirable - provide a fascinating glimpse of religious reactions to cutting-edge science. Not surprisingly, Evans discovers that for many people opinion on the issue closely relates to their feelings about abortion, but he also finds a shared moral language that offers a way around the unproductive polarization of the abortion debate and other culture-war concerns. "Contested Reproduction" is a prescient, profound look into the future of a hot-button issue.