In the brief article by Callahan he's proposing that their be a new category added to the discipline of ethical theory which would be ideological theory and I totally agree with him. I agree because simply whenever new technology is invented it will always stir up some kind of response whether it be a positive response or a negative one. Of course, with the negative response, people being people, will always raise the ethical question whether or not it ( the new technology) is immoral or not which raises a whole new set of questions. Ideology theory will give these new questions a field of their own to be studied and debated over much like what we are doing now. Then we have Brown's article where he states in his opening paragraph that when an issue has become political it is just another way of saying it has already fallen from grace now the issue is being tarnished by the involvement of politics. The issue at hand in this article is bioethics and and how biopolitics cannot help but be intertwined with bioethics. Thus, politicizing bioethics and then separating them into three politicization categories the first being liberal politicization in which bioethics must strive for both " a substantial degree of objectivity" and "freedom from political influence". The second one being communitarian politicization which begins with the critique of the liberal individual and with an autonomous subject who makes rational choices that are free from social constraints. The third being republican politicization which insist that order can only established through politics itself. Yes, this one way of generalizing the involvement of politics in bioethics, but I firmly believe that we should let bio medicine have a broad lei way in whatever direction it must take in order further life expectancy and eliminate any negativity from life in a medical sense. Now onto Fortuns book and I must say that I had an extreme tough time of picking it up after reading the first chapter, but now I must say that when I started to read in it the second time this term . I could not put the book down until I was done with the reading assignment. The part that caught my attention was the part where Kari Stefansson was mentioned in the same sentence with Mengele and Goring. I mean one could take this to one extreme and be horrified about the grouping of men that he is being categorized with or one can look at it from a scientific approach in which these men were trying to push the boundaries of medical science. Just that the Nazi's really violated and crossed all ethical boundaries in their pursuit of obtaining medical knowledge and I agree that they did. But, if they(the Nazi's) had won the war would these guys be considered monsters or pioneers in medical science that pushed the limits of our knowledge. Its sounds kind of ere.