President Bush's stem cell policy may have been restrictive and misguided, but it wasn't anti-science.
In the wake of Obama's decision to lift Bush's funding ban, many scientists are celebrating the freedom of science from ideology. Their relief is understandable, but the rhetoric is disturbing.
The Bush administration didn't skew stem cell research like it did environmental science: It simply said it wasn't right. Bush's limitations on embryonic research were ethical and legitimate — but not, as many observers have noted, anti-science.
"Some scientists may take home the wrong message: that moral concerns should not restrict what scientists can do. But that's clearly false," said Tom Murray, director of the Hastings Center, a nonpartisan bioethics think tank.
There are good reasons why society puts ethical boundaries on science.
The Nuremberg code is the best-known example of this. Shocked by the horrors of Nazi science, the civilized world agreed that tests should never again be conducted on people who hadn't agreed to take part, and that test subjects should not be knowingly harmed.
The Nuremberg code was invoked by activists outraged when the Bush administration, at the chemical industry's urging, proposed tests of pesticides on pregnant mothers and children. They weren't being anti-scientific. They were being humane.
Unfortunately, the difference between skewing scientific facts and restraining research has been largely lost in the celebration over Obama's lifting of Bush's funding ban.
[Read more...]
2 comments:
I've noticed that the Republicans tend to be more concerned about moral value (Kantian sort of ethics), while Democrats tend to be more pragmatic (Utillitarian ethics).
For example, when it comes to abortion, the Democratic Party is pro-choice, while the Republicans are pro-life. The "Mexico City Policy" is the showcase of this tug-o-war between the two parties on this issue. Implemented during Reagan, kept through Bush Sr, revoked by Clinton, reinstated by Bush Jr, revoked again by Obama.
Personally, I think that while Bush will go down in history as an unpopular president who perhaps really wasn't a fantastic one, he did seem to make a lot of decisions with his conscience. Abortion, stem cell research, even the war on terror. Unpopular doesn't mean wrong.
Obama is an exciting new president. Everyone is excited by this new era that he heralds. I am too. But I'm still holding my breath. Popular doesn't mean right.
Hmm... that's interesting food for thought. Though I think one responsibility of a governor is to ensure that he governs properly for the populace. Which though I think Bush was sincere, he didn't do a good job of governing.
His conscience may be clear, but that doesn't necessarily make him innocent. I mean, Guantanamo Bay...
In a way, I think Martin Luther put it well when he said that the Christian shoemaker glorifies God not by putting little crosses on the shoes he makes, but by making shoes excellently.
Post a Comment