We all knew Obama was going to reverse Bush's policy on federal embryonic stem cell research, and now he's done so. In his remarks, he indicated that he was turning back what he characterized as the Bush administration's attempts to let politics interfere with science. The reporting I've seen or heard (on NPR) this morning runs along the lines of this subhed in the Washington Post's online version of the story:
Memo to Keep Politics Out of Government Science Accompanies Stem Cell Action
What rot. Look, I strongly disagree with what Obama did today, because I find it to be gravely immoral (and unnecessary -- look at all the scientific advances on stem-cell research that does not require taxpayer-funded extermination of human life). Others believe he did the right thing, and Bush's action was immoral. Fine. What chaps my bottom is the pretense that Obama and the pro-ESCR folks have the morally neutral position. They don't. They are not keeping politics (or morality) out of science; they are only applying their own political and moral values to the practice of science. It's called applied bioethics.
Beware people who try to claim that science is, and should be, morally neutral. Whenever policymakers, both in government and in the medical field, decide that this practice will be permitted, but that won't be, they are engaged in imposing moral values on science. If you believe science should not be subject to the restraints of morality, but only to itself, you had better make your apologies to Dr. Mengele.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Gwyddion9 -- Light is darkness; darkness light; right is wrong; up is down; what was moral is now deemed to be "immoral;" and now under Obama, "non-political science" is highly political. We live in Orwell's world. Sorry, I'm not going to get used to it.
Loudon is a Fool wrote to me:
I think you could be a pro-abort and still be profoundly concerned about ESCR in its instrumentalizing of human life (or, I suppose to the pro-abort, potential human life), which should always give us pause.
Hmm. I'm not sure I'd see how that particular moral balancing act would work. What you're basically saying is that it's better to end a (potential) human life for no benefit other than the immediate financial benefit to the mother than it is to take that (potential) life that will be ended in any case and extend the benefits out to a group of people that could run into the millions. In both cases, the cost (the potential life) is the same, but the wider benefits are enormously greater in the latter scenario.
To put it another way, by accepting abortion, you're already instrumentalizing human life. It's just that the utilitarian goal you wish to reach is the financial and social well being of the mother. Why not get more "bang for the buck", to put it extremely crudely?
Of course, if the larger benefit is then in turn used as a pretext for increasing the number of abortions, then your point is well taken.
This of course is the problem with the "progressive" platform in a nutshell - they're convinced they are right on every issue, therefore there is no moral conflict. That this is anathema to some people is a non-issue, to the progressives these people are merely wrong, or stupid. For what it's worth I'm in favor of this decision, but to say it's separate from moral issues is ludicrous. The expansion of government in and of itself is interjecting politics into many decisions - such as who gets money, what is a disability, who can serve in our armed forces, what merits a tax deduction, who makes "too much" money, who should pay for someone else's problems, etc.
I am not sure where Obama really wants to take this. Personally I am not against basic research, but I think some limits or at least principles should be in place.
The path Bush outlined seemed worthy and it definitely resulted in advances in adult and umbilical cord stem cell methodology and treatments.
Actually it is probably not necessary to use tax dollars to fund adult stem cell research, but embryonic stem cell development will probably be slow in producing results so without public funding it simply won't happen to any degree. And that is the crux of the matter: public funding. Now the proponents get a chance to "piss in the cornflakes" of the opponents to having their tax dollars used this way, regardless of how irresponsible or unproductive it is.
I would not be surprised if embryonic stem cell research propaganda turns out to be the first big scam of the 21st century.
The ignorance by the anti-science religious right astounds me. Saying what the Nazi doctors did to the Jews is akin to stem cell research is shocking. Here the hypocrisy is exposed. These embryos would otherwise be thrown away by fertility clinics. Where is your article proposing a ban on fertility clinics? If someone morally objects to stem cell research then by all means reject the cures that come from it. You have a choice. Do not make that choice for me. I bet the most moral among you would be the first in line for a cure if it meant saving the life of your child or loved one.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.