There has been a certain amount of agitation among the scientific class about the popular opposition to stem cell research. I have heard perfectly rational people go so far as to talk about “a new dark age.” Religion is throttling scientific research in the cradle. Our President is anti-science.
It just ain’t so.
A good portion of America thinks that abortion should be illegal in nearly all cases. A good portion of the rest of America thinks that it should be legal, but that it is still something deeply immoral.
They think this because their morality tells them that fetuses are either alive or at least something close to it. You’ll find solid majorities of Americans in every region that are willing to treat the murders of pregnant women as double homicides.
Stem cell research is about taking embryos, which are considered alive or at least somewhat sacred by what is probably a majority of Americans, and using them for medical research.
Science does not advance at any cost. There are all sorts of rational limits supported by nearly all scientists. Morality is important.
The only way that the opposition to stem cell research could be anti-scientific would be if science could prove that embryos should not be held sacred. I admit that science informs morality, but anybody who thinks that it actually dictates it is off his rocker. Morality is not a product of reason; it is a product of human nature informed by reason. Science does not tell us whether abortions are right or wrong. It does not tell us whether harvesting stem cells are right or wrong.
Is it wrong to “force your morality on others in a democracy”? Hardly. I immediately lose respect for anyone whom I hear peddling that line. Every vote made in a democracy is about forcing your own personal morality on others. You vote your morality concerning war, concerning welfare and taxes, concerning criminal punishment, and a million other things. There is no way around it. The issue of stem cell research is no different.
The opposition to stem cell research is not anti-scientific. It is moral. The existence of such opposition as an expression of America’s underlying morality is a deeply positive thing. It means that morality can fight back against science. If the next century is really going to be one marked by the flowering of the science of genetic engineering, I am heartened that morality will be powerful enough to set limits to it.
Razib tries to get around being lost in the message board:
1) If you believe an embryo or zygote is a human being with personhood, be against fetal stem cell research.
2) If you believe there is an important moral reason to oppose fetal stem cell from say Francis Fukuyama’s Aristotelian ethical framework (most people who are pro-choice on abortion like Krauthammer seem to use similar flavors of reasoning), go ahead and be against fetal stem cell research.
3) But, please, please, stop talking up adult stem cell research vs. fetal stem cell research, because you really don’t care about that issue in your heart of hearts, do you?
4) I know fetal stem cells are not a “miracle cure,” but since I don’t think an embryo or zygote is a human being with personhood, I see no reason they shouldn’t be utilized while millions of fetuses and embryos are vacuumed out of women legally every year.
5) And for what it’s worth, a developmental biologist friend of mine who isn’t an abortion rights absolutist by any stretch tells me that those who think there is a “miracle cure” are deluding themselves, but, anti-fetal stem cell people who argue both that adult stem cells are miraculous in comparison to fetal stem cells and that we have enough fetal stem cell lines are being deceptive (he didn’t use the word deceptive exactly, it had more color).
6) So to reiterate, I have no problem with pro-life people being against fetal stem cell research. I do have a problem with pro-lifers always playing up adult stem cells like those of us who don’t think zygotes or embryos are people will be mollified and be sanguine about closing off the possibilities of fetal stem cells. Let me repeat, I don’t believe a zygote or embryo is a human or person, and I don’t think there are negative moral consequences in following this avenue of research, so I don’t care how much more promise adult stem cells show vs. fetal stem cells. It’s great if adult stem cells have a lot of promise, that doesn’t mean that we can’t do both! I don’t look to NRO for my biotech news Ramesh or Kathryn.
Addendum: Just a clarification and comment. I don’t think people who have qualms about fetal stem cell research are “wrong,” since the ultimate issue is about norms & ends, though I think some of their supporting arguments (which I have stated I believe they don’t really believe) are wrong or flimsy (ie; we don’t need fetal stem cells, adult stem cells are so much better, we have enough lines of fetal stem cells). Another point is that this is the sort of “political” thread that I think is proper for GNXP, though I happen to disagree with the general thrust of Thras’ post, the post itself didn’t bother me in the least, and the thread has not devolved into a hybrid of Kos & Free Republic. In the consequences shall you know the fruit of your endeavors.
Update from Thras Going to keep it short. You can check the message board for anything further.
Razib is right on for pretty much everything he says. The big push for adult stem cell research is anti-science because it’s being done for political reasons.
I will also mention that I agree with Razib that embryos are not humans with personhood. Of course, I don’t think that anybody under the age of 10 or so are really human beings with personhood. Or people with IQs much under 65 or 70. So you can see where that would get me were it my only guiding principline. See the message board for my considerations on the origin of morality.
Posted by Thrasymachus at 08:46 AM