King for a Day? On What’s Wrong With Changing the World for the Better
By Roland Nadler,
Law and Biosciences Blog
| 01. 04. 2016
Untitled Document
Philosopher Russell Blackford argues that regulatory authorities should not allow “the tyranny of mere public opinion” to impede technological advances in genomics. I disagree strenuously. To explain why, let’s talk for a minute about … Mark Zuckerberg.
It was perhaps the last big Silicon Valley news story of 2015: Facebook’s CEO blew the headlines wide open when he and Dr. Priscilla Chan announced that they will dedicate 99% of their Facebook shares to their eponymous charitable LLC within their lifetimes. Widespread adulation was the order of the day.
You don’t have to be Gawker gadfly Sam Biddle to find some cause for concern, though. Two unelected, unaccountable magnates now wield a $45 billion policymaking LLC, unimpeded by the usual tax-law strictures for charitable organizations. They can and will remake swaths of the world as they see fit. What’s your recourse if you disagree with their definition of “better”? (Think you’ll never disagree? I’ve got some New Jersey charter schools to sell you.)
So, why rehearse the well-worn debate over philanthropy’s democratic legitimacy on a law and biosciences blog? Money isn’t the only way to change the world. Teams...
Related Articles
By Jared Whitlock, Endpoints News | 10.09.2025
When Nirnay Murthy learned about a treatment for his toddler son’s rare condition, relief quickly gave way to disappointment.
A one-time gene therapy called Zolgensma from the Swiss drugmaker Novartis can halt spinal muscular atrophy, a deadly condition that causes...
By Meagan Parrish, PharmaVoice | 10.10.2025
When CEO Ben Lamm steps into the spotlight, it’s usually to talk about his efforts bringing extinct animals back to life. Once a far-flung idea, Lamm and the company he heads, Colossal Biosciences, have proven they can pull it off...
By Rob Stein, NPR | 09.30.2025
Scientists have created human eggs containing genes from adult skin cells, a step that someday could help women who are infertile or gay couples have babies with their own genes but would also raise difficult ethical, social and legal issues...
By Daniel Hildebrand, The Humanist | 10.01.2025
When most people hear the word eugenics, they think of dusty history textbooks and black-and-white photographs: forced sterilizations in the early 20th century, pseudoscientific charts measuring skulls, the language of “fitness” used to justify violence and exclusion. It feels like...