| Abstract: | Reflecting on his experiences as a staff philosopher on the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research and with other advisory bodies, Brock contends that there is a deep conflict between the goals and constraints of the public policy process and those of scholarly activity in general and philosophical activity in particular. Whereas unconstrained search for the truth is the central virtue of scholarly work, the first concern of policy makers is the impact of their actions on policies and people. The need to persuade policy makers and to maintain their own credibility leads philosophers to cut and trim their views. While the philosophers should be open to radical change if persuasive argument supports it, policy makers deal in incremental change. Philosophers can help widen the policy agenda, but their contribution should be limited and temporary and their primary base should remain an academic one. |
