Comments on: Embryonic Stem Cells: A Bum Deal

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

But what is science if we give up on a line of research that clearly has some scientists fascinated, simply because some other line of research is doing what we the public want? Science will always be more robust if it is driven by the curiosity of the scientists, and not by the fickleness of the market or the non-scientist public.

Perhaps it would be more honest (and have deeper resonance with your audience) if you stopped disapproving of ESCR on the basis of comparison with ASCR, and simply stuck with disapproving of ESCR because of the alleged ethical issue.

Your contracting metaphor doesn't really play out because contractors are hired to perform a known, repeatable process with fairly standard techniques. People who aren't competent will be flushed out quickly and easily. Stem cell research, however, is cutting-edge stuff where different approaches are still being tested. Just because one approach has yielded more short-term results does not mean the other approach is not worthwhile or invalid. You do point that out, though, and I think it weakens your argument. If the problem is whether a particular technique is useful, and you admit that the difference might simply be one of short-term versus long-term, then what's the problem? Is it purely financial?

Why do you really oppose ESCR? Because it is not currently fruitful, or because you have a moral problem with it? If I recall some of your older posts, it's because you have a moral problem with it. So why not stick with that? It's a more secure line of argument, even if it's not an ultimately soluble one. (I.e., I think it's perfectly possible that people could be debating the ethics of ESCR indefinitely, simply because the basic moral reactions of the public to this research are genuinely diverse.)

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I think the point that Jerry is trying to make is that ESC are just so much snake oil - very expensive and time-consuming snake oil. Those enthusuastic about ESCR over-sell it. Obviously, folks like Jerry and I find ESCR to be morally unacceptable. However, there's nothing wrong with using other concerns to prevent the government to spend money on it. Why waste taxpayer money on something that *might* produce results when there's already something that *does* produce results? Think of it this way. If I want someone to stop smoking, the chief reason is health. That doesn't mean I can't point out cosmetic issues like bad breath and yellow fingers in order to accomplish my goal.

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I'm not going to go one way or the other on simple majorities. In some respects, I like them and think they're fantastic. In other respects, I don't.

In regards to stem cells, I think the situation in California as compared to federal circumstances just happens to be an interesting "laboratory." A majority of California voters, when the question was put on a ballot, supported stem cell research. Would the same be true at the federal level? Unfortunately, we will never know, and the issue will continue to be confounded by factions and ideology. Would it be better if there were a federal referendum and everybody got a say in the matter? Maybe. But I suspect that no matter which way that vote went, the controversy wouldn't go away. What happens in California remains to be seen. Already there is some grumbling about how the research commission is being run. We shall see.

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

If morally is how you would prefer to argue it, and how you think the argument is stronger, then I think you should argue it that way. As General Grant told his underlings during the last year of the Civil War, don't spend your time worrying about what the enemy will do, but about what you will do.

However, I should point out that from my perspective the moral argument is almost completely empty, because I have never experienced any moral revulsion to using human embryos for research, or human cloning, or any of those other things that are supposed to freak me out. To get around that, you'll have to argue the rather offensive line that people like me are somehow defective in our moral reasoning.

On the other hand, I completely understand and agree with the argument that it's unfair to make people pay for something they do not approve of. However, when democracy leaps into action, as it did in California, people who don't support ESCR have little other choice than to accept the rule by majority or to begin their own campaign to change the situation. But, as I also mentioned, this will never happen at the federal level. What if a majority of ordinary Americans do want to use federal money for ESCR (or if a majority of voters would support it), and the program is obstructed by a vocal minority, simply because there is no structure for a federal referendum? That's not quite fair or just, either, and why many of us would rather see federal politics shorn of religion and ideology altogether. Let the masses decide, and not a few religious lobbyists or "personalities."

But this, of course, is why those few religious lobbyists and "personalities" are trying so desperately to make scientists out to be just as ideological as they themselves are. If they can successfully argue that everyone on every side of the debate is equally ideologically driven, then they can open the government up to their own version of blatantly ideological and religious legislating and make the separation of church and state meaningless. This fits their philosophy, of course, that religion (i.e., ideology or other forms of religious thought) is everywhere and insuperable from affairs of state or science or anything else. Once we're all wrapped in their murky, sweaty, sticky world of abstract ideology, it's nothing but an irrational free-for-all, and anybody claiming to have any kind of religious or ideological perspective will have just as much weight in the public forum as anybody with a pragmatic or rationalist one, and moral or ethical reasoning won't mean a thing. It'll just be "I'm louder than you are," or "My God is more wrathful than your god."

But now I'm just rambling, and many others throughout the history of our nation have made much better arguments for secular government than I have (or can).

By: Tom Smith

Tom Smith — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

My impression has always been that, ideally, simple majorities, or even pluralities, are supposed to run the show as long as the rights of the minority are respected and kept.

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

My point isn't that our federal government is run by simple majorities, or even that it should be, but that no matter how we organize our politics, there will be defects in justice.

By: John

John — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

The Chinese claim to have repaired a spinal chord with embrionic stem cells and gotten someone back up and walking. But I don't know if that has been verified to any acceptable degree.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Theo,

Our goverment isn't run by simple majorities. If it was, there'd be no Senate.

By: Jerry Nora

Jerry Nora — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Theo, I would be willing to fund long-shot but ethical science. I tried to focus this article as a plea for greater honesty in presenting the science. Folks overplay ESCR's value, and try to make out its opponents as those who would forsake the suffering of the patients. I would love nothing better than keeping the debate on a moral level, without muddying the waters by wheeling out Reeve (while he was still with us–may he rest in peace) or Michael J. Fox and trying to manipulate people's feelings.

By: Jerry Nora

Jerry Nora — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Theo, that something is wrong doesn't mean that we must feel revulsion. Much human suffering seems distant to me, and perhaps, thanks to the media, I am numb to things that *should* revolt me. But it is still wrong. Embryos often feel absract to me, but I think that destroying them is bad, and so I work to explain that viewpoint to people, and to show(manipulations aside, as per our previous conversation) that we need not sacrifice anything essential for ourselves either.