Podcast Review: The DNA of Things – When ethics meets power

In a world where I often feel we are pushed to choose between being an 'arts/humanities' person or a 'science' person, I find conversations that bridge these disciplines both captivating and, honestly, quite necessary.

Bioethicist Professor Insoo Hyun, director of the Centre for Life Sciences and Public Learning at the Museum of Science in Boston, Massachusetts, began as a pre-medical biology student before switching to philosophy after his first year at university. He reflects that, at the time, he felt like he was turning his back on science in favour of the humanities, only to later find himself building a career at a medical school and eventually becoming a professor there.

Although this is not the main topic of the conversation between Professor Hyun and Dr Jeremy Koenig, host of the DNA of Things podcast, I really appreciate when interviews begin with a little bit of personal context. It helps me see experts as people first – who just happen to specialise in fascinating areas. It also frames the conversation in a way that feels broader than just bioethics; little bits of 'life' are sprinkled in too.

In this episode – When Ethics Meets Power: Stem Cells, AI, and the Future of Being Human – Professor Hyun discusses how bioethics plays out in the real world. He did not set out to dedicate his academic life to bioethics from the beginning; rather, his path developed organically. It just so happened that his PhD supervisor was a prominent bioethics scholar who also served on President Bill Clinton's bioethics council, giving Professor Hyun his first exposure to bioethics policymaking. It was there that he realised that bioethics brought together many of his interests: philosophy, politics, religion, beliefs and biology. As a bioethics enthusiast myself, I think he frames the field very clearly here, even daring to throw in brave words like 'politics' and 'religion' – concepts that not everyone is comfortable acknowledging as part of bioethics policymaking.

One of the most thought-provoking parts of the conversation comes from his reflections on what happens behind the scenes, in rooms where 'science meets power'. Professor Hyun describes his time on Clinton's bioethics council as something of a wake-up call. He realised that in real-world policy discussions, the most logically sound argument does not always win. Political feasibility, timing, and how the argument fits into the broader context matter, and can be deciding factors in the final decision.

Professor Hyun shares that he has experienced this dynamic repeatedly, in both national and international settings where bioethical guidelines are set. Decisions are not always driven by the arguments alone, but also by what feels most acceptable to the average person. I may be oversimplifying a complex issue, but hearing this felt as though philosophical reasoning can sometimes lose out on what amounts to a popularity contest. As a hopeless believer in the power of a well-structured argument, this was a tough pill to swallow.

As Professor Hyun highlights, nobody had prepared him to navigate this landscape, and by 'this landscape' I do just mean the real world. He also emphasises the importance of learning negotiation skills to be able to make a stance where politics comes into the picture, and I find myself agreeing with him.

Later in the conversation, Dr Koenig asks whether ethics has ever been seen as a limitation or obstacle to scientific research. Professor Hyun responds with a story about debates around whether a woman should be paid to donate her eggs for research purposes. Some argued that it was unethical to do so because it could lead to undue inducement. The conversation becomes particularly interesting, bringing together many areas of bioethics: feminism, cultural beliefs, political perspectives, and ethical principles.

Professor Hyun goes on to explain why he believes that the unethical position would actually be to not pay a woman for her donation, which I found fascinating. His main argument is that if we compensate donors of other biological tissues, it is inconsistent not to compensate egg donors too. Although I believe this to be a valid argument, my main counterargument would be that maybe no one should be paid for donating biological tissue at all.

This might reflect a broader European versus American view on tissue donation, which is also an interesting thing to consider. However, I would have loved the host to be more interactive here and push back on some of these points. At times, it felt more like a monologue from the expert rather than an actual conversation.

Overall, I found this episode to be a well-rounded conversation with plenty of interesting insights and food for thought. I also quite enjoyed the fact that it is an hour and a half long. Good conversations take time, and not everything has to be condensed into a 20-minute summary for optimised learning. I personally could have listened for longer, but then again, bioethics is one of my favourite topics, so I am biased.

I also want to highlight that this conversation is truly for everyone – scientists and non-scientists alike. Professor Hyun makes sure to explain scientific terms in plain language, which is greatly appreciated. This approach makes bioethics accessible, just as it should be. I would highly recommend for a slow Sunday morning walk along the park, with a coffee in hand and a keen interest in how bioethics decisions are actually made.