Stem Cells, Science, & Politics

I have accused President Obama of dishonesty on earmarks.  Steve Chapman, at Reason, accuses him of confusion on the stem cell issue. 

Not many of us would want the federal government to leave military procurement to defense contractors, Medicare reimbursement to doctors, or banking regulation to Citigroup. But President Obama says when it comes to allocating federal funds for scientific studies, we should defer to scientists.

This is right on target.  Scientists call tell us what might be done with research on dismembered embryos.  They cannot, in their professional capacity, tell us whether such research is ethical or not.  I think that the President was either dishonest or confused when he declared that he would put science over politics on this issue.  His decision to remove the ban on federal funds for new stem cell lines from "discarded" embryos may be the right call, or not, but it is precisely a political decision.  Again from Chapman:

"This order," said the president, "is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America" and "protecting free and open inquiry." Harold Varmus, co-chairman of the president's scientific advisory council, said it showed the president would rely on "sound scientific practice ... instead of dogma in developing federal policy."

But one person's dogma is another one's ethical imperative or moral principle. Science can tell us how to build a nuclear weapon. But science can't tell us whether we should use it.

Just because research may be useful in combating disease doesn't mean it's ethically acceptable. The infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment—in which the federal Public Health Service secretly withheld treatment from infected black men to learn more about the disease—might have yielded valuable data. But no scientific discovery could possibly have justified it.

I recently listened to a BBC report, which said that President Bush's ban on stem cell research had been overturned by Obama.  I heard the same report three times in one day, and it was a lie all three times.  Bush didn't ban stem cell research, he funded it for the first time.  But he limited it to existing stem cell lines, in order to discourage the creation of embryos for the purpose of harvesting their cells.  Maybe his compromise was too strict (I think it was, a bit).  But Obama's new policy is dangerously broad. 

In 2001, supporters of embryonic stem cell research called on Bush to allow experiments using "surplus" frozen embryos in fertility clinics, arguing that they would be disposed of anyway. But Obama didn't limit his new policy to these fertilized eggs.

On the contrary, he left open the possibility of funding studies using embryos created specifically so their cells can be harvested—which Congress has barred, but which some advocates would like to allow. The president took no position on whether scientists should be permitted to create embryos for the sole purpose of dismembering them for their stem cells.

He did, however, reject another option. "We will ensure," he said, "that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, or any society."

Is that a scientific judgment? No, it's a philosophical one, reflecting Obama's moral values.

Yes, and that is the point.  If we can harvest embryos, what about fetuses?  What about a fully formed child moments away from natural birth?  You can chew on the moral fiber here, but these are political questions not scientific ones.  On this topic, as perhaps on others, the President is deeply confused.