In the 1990s, the possibility of using genetic technology to clone animals, and even humans, raised previously unheard-of ethical questions, as did the promise and moral hazards of stem-cell research. George W. Bush formed the President’s Council on Bioethics to study and address these issues, but Donald Trump let the institution lie dormant, as has his successor. With new challenges arising—such as sex-changes and gene-editing—and the likelihood that the near future will bring even greater advances in medicine, Seth Higgins argues that it’s time to revive this institution:

The lessons of President Bush and his bioethics council do not suggest bioethics councils push these issues aside or decrease their intensity. The bioethical debates of the decade were brutal; Bush and his council were frequently attacked. However, the bioethics-council model allows debate to be ushered through an institution designed to take opposing viewpoints of experts and average citizens alike and channel them into research that produces reports and legislative proposals. Demagogues and those looking to score cheap political points are stymied when a functional, highly engaged bioethics council is in place.

After a two-term hiatus, it is time for the next president to articulate his or her moral vision on bioethics and form a council to address the questions of today. What the next president should not do is create a new agency to address these matters.

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.