In an earlier essay, I advocated that translational bioethics uses the public's values, determined through social science, in its analysis of translational science technologies. It may be unclear what those values might be, and whether such a translational ethics would necessarily conclude that cutting edge technologies should not be developed. In this essay, I show the public's values relevant to human brain organoids and argue that a translational bioethics analysis using these values would support continued organoid research.

In response to Flamm and Kodish, I argue that our misunderstanding or disagreement is primarily the result of different definitions of power. I also disagree with them and claim that they are indeed using the public's ethics. Finally, I argue that there is no reason to think that bioethicists cannot have the same sort of influence in the boardroom that they have in the clinic.

Due to conservative Protestant elites challenging scientists in the public sphere, and prominent scientists attacking religion, scholars have claimed that there is an increasing conflict between conservative Protestants and science. However, these claims have never been empirically investigated and these general claims do not specify what conflict is actually about. In this article I use the General Social Survey from 1984 to 2010 to examine whether conservative Protestants are increasingly opposed to the social and moral influence of scientists. I find evidence for increasing opposition by biblical literalist conservative Protestants to the involvement of scientists in social debates about moral issues. © 2013 The Society for the Scientific Study of Religion.

Translational science is justified as advancing the public's interests but has no mechanism for determining these interests. Standard social science approaches would produce either unrepresentative descriptions or a cacophony of data not easily condensed into a concrete conclusion about moving forward with a translational-science project. Here, I propose that the simplifying and structuring ethics employed by institutional review boards (IRBs) be used to create social science reports of the four to six most prominent values or principles of the public regarding a biotechnology. A board of bioethicists would weigh and balance these values to conclude whether the public supports a given translational-science innovation.