Salentan writes:

"Conservative bioethicists think that when we recoil at something in this gray area, our repugnance signals a moral problem. Liberal bioethicists dismiss this argument as "fuzzy intuitionism" based on an illogical "yuck factor." The liberals are making a big mistake. Fuzz and yuck are very real. They're a lot more real to most people than bioethics is."

I'm disgusted by shellfish. Many others won't touch pork, or any meat at all. And most people on this planet believe urine to be unclean, though it is sterile. I fail to see how disgust should contribute to the formation of a coherent political or scientific plan. People are disgusted by things not necessarily from any inherent, reflexive, human reaction, but rather because they have been told and taught to believe something is disgusting since they were small children, often in the guise of religion.

This is why scientists don't want to touch the repugnance argument: because repugnance isn't objective, as science generally strives to be. And disgust certainly isn't rational. Let's be reasonable - as someone who has few if any moral qualms about our advances in biotechnology, I still recognize that there are numerous pragmatic reasons for putting the brakes on specific technologies: research dollars could be better spent elsewhere, biotechnology could lead to a world of genetic haves versus have nots, and the science is in some cases simply not ready. But as far as reasons go for not supporting biotechnology, "this gives me the willies" ought not be one of them.

It really can't be used as a reason to ban a technique or technology or line of inquiry. At best you can say, "I'd better figure out why I think that's gross." But I don't ever want my freedoms limited by some one else's aesthetics.

You will then be surprised to learn that repugnance, disgust, and more specifically, "purity/pollution", is a "cultural universal" similar to "fairness/reciprocity" and "suffering/compassion." See J. Haidt and empirical studies of moral intuitions in general, which also includes the study of moral intuitions in chimpanzees and other primates. See also Frans de Waal.

You misunderstand the import of Saletan's statement because you're not familiar with the science he refers to. Saletan KNOWS more than you do. You should read more of his columns about "human nature."

As far as your repugnance for the "repugnance argument," you may also wish to consider that people whose "emotive" areas of the brains were damaged cannot make moral decisions. There is no reaching a sociopath with logic and reason.

There are competing "cognitive modules" in diff. parts of the brain that correspond roughly to emotive and utilitarian or "objective" concerns. Making a moral decision involves using the entire brain and is much more than being "objective" or making a cost-benefit analysis. Lots of things are rational --- but that does not make them "human." And lots of things are not "rational" but without them, human existence would not be.