I heard the authors interviewed in a sciece podcast and they were reasonable, despite my expectations.

Basically they said scientists need to stay out of politics to gain more trust, something that many other counsel against.

Sometimes intuitions about the natural world can hinder the learning of scientific theories, but the best case is when scientific models can be constructed so as to make use of those intuitions that are already there. Thus, for example, the idea of an "energy landscape" for a chemical reaction allows some of the common-sense notions of how objects move over a physical, material surface to be applied to the trajectory of molecules through the transition state.

I'm not sure the quote from the Bioethics Commission in ftn. 20 is really dualism. It sounds more like neutral monism to me.

Another consequence of people's common-sense psychology is dualism, the belief that the mind is fundamentally different from the brain

I must say that I somehow support this opinion in the following sense:
Though brain and mind are the same "thing" the brain in is an "outside view" and the mind is an "inside view" and neither is the "real thing" but only a peculiar and necessarily incomplete VIEW of the real thing.

I don't like to call this dualism since I am pretty sure that there is an unique underlying "reality" behind both views.