“Brush your teeth,” a mother says to her son. She’s exhausted. She spent a long day organizing a series of speaking events hosted by her department, Bioethics, at the NIH. A tough year at the NIH followed several tough years of fierce public and academic debate over the legitimacy of public health efforts and the value of scientific medicine. He needs to go to bed. First, he needs to brush his teeth. What she doesn’t need is— “Why?” he asks. “Because it’s good for you,” she replies, reflexively. “Why?” he asks, predictably. “Because it’ll keep your teeth healthy.” “So?” “Don’t you want healthy teeth?” He shrugs. This time, she pauses. She almost repeated her first reply—but that would be circular. She began mentally collecting instrumental benefits of dental health—but that won’t move him. “Just brush your teeth, son.” Later, lying in bed, her thoughts turn back to her son’s shrug. It seemed in a way representative of the zeitgeist that has made her job difficult these past years: reluctance to accept “because it’s good for …