Science, Ideology, and Stem Cells

Obama’s decision to rescind the Bush administration’s ban on federal funding for stem cell research is not, as an AP story puts it, “a clear signal that science — not political ideology — will guide the administration.”

It is dishonest to frame this policy shift in terms of (true) scientific thinking replacing (false) ideological thinking. What we are seeing is simply one ideology taking the place of another.

Science per se has nothing to add to the ethical and political discussions that guide legislation on the stem cell issue. Of course one must be fully informed about the facts in order to make the best possible ethical decisions, but we should have learned by now that biology, chemistry, et al. can never supply the final word on issues that hinge upon concepts like ‘the sanctity of life’ – and that is the case whether we are talking about the life of a three-day old embryo or the life of a fifty-year old father with Parkinson’s disease.

I am not sure there is any ideologically neutral way to address policy questions on this and similar issues. Since there are no scanners or microscopes that can detect sanctity, there are no publicly verifiable facts-of-the-matter to which we may appeal. From a purely scientific point of view, those who believe that the existence of human embryos is sacred are no more wrong-headed than those who believe in the sanctity of adult human life.

That being said, the Obama administration is taking the best available course by leaving this decision up to Congress. Given the irreconcilability of this kind of conflict, the best we can do is fall back upon our democratic procedures.

For the past several years, polls have shown that a majority of Americans favor federal support of embryonic stem cell research. This majority has been reflected in Congress. Twice during the Bush administration, Congress passed legislation that would have expanded federal funding in this controversial area. President Bush vetoed both of those bills, each time citing moral grounds for his decision. By leaving the decision on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research up to Congress, President Obama is allowing the majority opinion to become law. All this is in accord with the Constitution.

Those morally opposed to stem-cell research will be disappointed by fast-approaching changes in federal legislation. They should be; it means they are losing. But their loss should not be blamed on Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or Barack Obama. The ‘pro-lifers’ opposed to embryonic stem cell research have failed to articulate arguments convincing arguments to the American people. If they can correct this failing before next November, they may be able to stem the rising tide. If they can’t, they may ultimately prove to be on the wrong side of history. Such is the beautiful mess of democracy.