I like Murray, and I’ve criticized Kass before, but Murray’s objection to Kass is silly. Kass was on record as a critic of anything-goes bioethics long before the commission was put together, and the president knew he had positions on many bioethical issues. That’s why the president put him there. If that was okay then, then why is it wrong for Kass to express his views now? If people object to the commission’s existence or to Bush’s initial selection of Kass to run it, then they should make that case–not pretend that Kass has committed some new offense that makes him unsuitable for the job. This “merits to one side” business seems to me to deserve some scrutiny, too. Would you really be jumping on this bandwagon, Andrew, if you agreed with Kass’s agenda? Do you really have strong views on the appropriate advocacy role of commission chairmen?