Science’s Rightful Place Redux
| March 7, 2009 | Posted by DonaldM under Biology, Chemistry, Constitution, Culture, Darwinism, Laws, Legal, Philosophy, Religion, Science |
Back in January I posted this comment to ask what is science’s “rightful place.” Now it seems we’re getting a clearer picture of the answer as far as the President is concerned. Fox News is reporting that President Obama to issue an executive order on Monday that would lift the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research put in place under President Bush.
Regardless of one’s opinion or position on this issue, there are a couple points of concern with respect to this story. First is this comment from the new story that “Obama’s move is expected to lift that restriction. The official said the aim of the policy is restore “scientific integrity” to the process.” I don’t know who this official was, but exactly what is “scientific integrity” and who gets to decide it?
Apparently the answer to that question is found a little later in the article: “But leading researchers consider embryonic stem cells the most flexible, and thus most promising, form — and say that science, not politics, should ultimately judge.” In other words science ought to be the arbiter of its own morals and ethics and government can keep its moral and ethical opinions on scientific practice to itself!
I find this to be the height of arrogance and, frankly, its a bit scary. A science morally and ethically unrestrained by government will ultimately take the mentality that anything that is possible should be.
113 Responses to Science’s Rightful Place Redux
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Clive
In order to not give you an excuse for not answering, here is my answer.
It would be irrelevant to me if people were killed in the robbery because I would not spend the money anyway. So people dead or not, the issue is the same.
Now, would you allow a child to die or suffer by withholding a treatment that could cure them, if derived from stem cell research?
George, both questions are the same. If something good were to come from something bad, that doesn’t mean that the means should’nt have been avoided if they could’ve been avoided. The experiments on live subjects during the holocaust yielded increased knowledge of physiology, but then we remember that it took people to be operated on without their consent, and there is no need to recount the horrendous nature of those experiments. Does the increase in knowledge justify the experiments? Does the ability to possible save some people from illness justify murder of others? That is essentially your question, and the answer is no.
Now you can answer my question.
George
You may as well ask if it were the case that I needed a kidney and upon my assent to receive the kidney, the donor will be killed in order to donate it, would I still accept the kidney. Of course not! Evil in the name of science is still evil. It is immoral and unethical to prey upon one class of human beings in order to benefit another, including myself and/or my family.
Clive, DonaldM
Thank you for your answers.
I’m amazed at the lengths you had to go to to justify them however.
Clive, you bring in the nazis and live experementation on unwilling subjects, Donald, you talk of murder.
It’s interesting that you have to equate a bundle of cells with the knowing sacrifice of an actual living self aware grown human being to make your case.
These cells in the majority of cases would have been discarded in any case, they never would have had even the possiblity of development.
And yet you would rather they were thrown away then used to create life saving treatments!
You do know nothing has really changed today? Mutiple stem cell lines have been available for use, just not by goverment funded scientists.
I hope you are never in a position where you have to make the choice between saving a family members life or refusing treatment on the basis of your moral objections.
However, I would lobby for your imprisonment if your choice caused the death of a person (such as a minor under your guardinanship).
Allow yourself to die, by all means. Prevent somebody from being saved because of your moral judgement? That’s a different story and you would be in the same catagory, to me, as those parents that pray for their children instead of taking them to the doctor. When the children die, I consider that murder.
DonaldM (83):
You should have waited a few days to respond to the news, rather than run with a spun prognostication of what the news would be.
Would you care to supply a quotation of President Obama backing up your claim? Your Fox News article lifted out of context and misconstrued the phrase “scientific integrity” appearing in a memorandum:
Evidently the president had quite a bit to say about ethics and governmental oversight. And there are medical ethicists at the National Institutes of Health who work on such guidelines.
The fact that the president’s sense of ethics is not what you think it should be does not mean that he has handed ethical integrity over to scientists.
George, the concept is the same, I do not have to equate a, as you put it, “bundle of cells” to a human for the principle of the end not justifying the means. If you want to argue over the means, that is it’s own question. If it is shown that the means are wrong, then the end, having any merit, is not a valid argument, which is exactly what you were implying (that if the end is useful for saving a life, then the means would be justified). Strictly speaking, this was the form of your argument. It’s not valid. Now if you want to discuss whether the means is itself valid, void of any discussion of the end, we can do that, but let’s not confuse our discussion and jump around the point. Either fertilized embryos are real live humans, or they aren’t. You say they’re not. I say they are. A “bundle of cells” is all anyone is (on the physical level), yourself included, you’re just a bigger bundle. The reduction argument goes both ways.
Clive,
Exactly my point, with one difference. The difference is that a fertilized embryo is indeed a potential “real live human” but it’s not a miniature adult (or rather, fully developed) human being!
On a related subject, given all that you have said, do you think that women should have the right to control their own fertility via options that include abortion?
If not, what punishment should be given to women who have illegal abortions, should abortion become illegal?
George,
I’m against abortion with the normal caveats of incest and the health of the mother, maybe some other situations. You are still a fertilized embryo, you just happen to have grown more since then, but you were certainly, at least, once, only that. Questions of punishment are rabbit trails. The point of the post was in “science” being protected against moral accountability. Either way the politics comes down, for or against a proposition concerning the morality of a scientific position, they government is acting in what it considers “moral” or “right”, even if that means that there should be no intervention–that is still a “moral” position. That’s what makes the current administration’s position so inconsistent and contradictory. To say that it is “wrong” to moralize in science, is surely ridiculous, for “wrong” is a moral judgment.
Allen:
“it’s not rationality at all that makes us human, nor sentience, nor chromosomes, nor any of those other “inhuman” things: it’s our emotions and who we care about, and why that makes us who we are.”
Logic is not your strong point.
Salgal
And:
The original article took nothing out of context. It was someone from the science community who said that science and not politics should be the judge. It is the role of government to defend the innocent and protect the weak, and that includes placing limits on scientific practice. All this talk about globs of cells and the like is beside the point completely. Neither science nor philosophy can tell us where the line is between conception and death where on one side of it its perfectly okay to destroy life for scientific purposes and on the other it isn’t. The ONLY thing science can tell us is that from the second of conception that “blob of cells” is human and nothing but human, being as it is, composed entirely of human DNA.
But even all that is beside the point. The point of my OP and my later post is that government has every right to place constraints on science and scientific practice for practicle, moral and ethical reasons. But, in this instance, it is inconsistently applied. In the case of stem cell research, the administrations cedes to science to right to judge; in the casing of cloning it doesn’t. And that is my point! So contrary to your post, I took nothing out of context. This is precisely what happened, and more importantly how it was discussed by the President, the scientists and other adminstration officials.
DonaldM,
When I read your article, I was sure the journalist had misunderstood the anonymous source, and resolved to post here when the “news” actually emerged as news.
Now that we know what the source was leaking, it is clear that the reporter was confused about the “process” to which the administration was restoring “scientific integrity.”
The memorandum referring to “scientific integrity” indicated, in essence, that the Obama administration would not doctor and suppress scientific reports as the Bush administration did. (BTW, I do not take any politician’s word on such a matter.)
I recommend that you never parse too closely a two-word quotation of an anonymity in a story prognosticating what the news will be in several days.
To Clive
“I’m against abortion with the normal caveats of incest and the health of the mother, maybe some other situations.”
So it is OK to ‘murder’ an embryo sometimes but not all the time? How do you make that distinctiona and why?
GSV,
Because morality is like a song, a composition, and the moral precepts are the keys. Some combination of the keys will be appropriate in some instances and not in others. If we play one key in every song, it will be discordant, not in tune with morality. What you’re assuming is that one key, namely life, should be played in all and every circumstance, across the board, in every song, including capital punishment, war, and pacifism with whoever may be trying to kill us. This conceptual framework of morality can be read in Mere Christianity. We cannot uphold one moral precept at the expense of all others, not even love, for if we do we should be shirking justice and impartiality.
What will happen if embryonic stem cells do not cure anything?
And why don’t men have reproductive rights?
Salgal
My comments were not in response to a two word quotation, but to an entire stated worldview that science and not politics should judge [the morality and ethics]. But it is worth noting that in this case the two words “scientific integrity” come with a boatload of philosophical presuppositions about the nature of science, the role of science in culture, and the moral and ethical boundaries within which science may operate and how and under what circumstances restrictions may be placed on scientific practice. There is way more than the reversal of Pres. Bush’s policies at stake here.
One of the purposes of UD is to expose the idea that:
In the comments made last week and this week, we are witnessing the materialistic worldview in full force. The entire argument that science not politics ought to judge is rooted in a materialist and utilitarian philosophy. The question that neither science nor the Administration is asking is “what does it mean to be human?”
George F
Right. They’re not really human, only quasi-human or sub-human, so we may as well use them to derive what benefit we can. They were going to be destroyed anyway.
Remind me, are we disussing embryos or Jews…I forget?
To DonaldM
Why are you talking about Jews? I am truly lost here.
H’mm:
Interesting how a theoretical discussion over the past few days on implications of hyperskepticism, subjectivism, relativism and pragmatism, leads to the on the ground reality all too quickly:
Time to pray and to act, before it is too late.
GEM of TKI
PS: Scientists, too often, are DEMONSTRABLY precisely the worst-qualified, least responsible people to think or work through ethical issues that you can find; which is one lesson from the 1930s & 40s, and not just in and around Germany — just ask the ghosts of 1/2 millions from two cities in Japan. (Unfortunately, philosophers and too many theologians are now of the same ilk. Looks like Rom 1 in action to me.)
To GSV: I was being cheeky to make a point.
To Clive:
“Because morality is like a song, a composition, and the moral precepts are the keys. Some combination of the keys will be appropriate in some instances and not in others.”
Who decides the combinations and how?
Actually, you do. They come 12 to a box and are individually wrapped for situational transport.
And why don’t men have reproductive rights?
That is birth control and has nothing to do with reproductive rights.
Having reproductive rights would mean a woman would need her man’s agreement before having an abortion.
And therefor a man could veto an abortion. Meaning if the woman went ahead with it she and the person performing it would get jail time.
To Joseph
“And therefor a man could veto an abortion. Meaning if the woman went ahead with it she and the person performing it would get jail time.”
That would also mean a woman no longer has the right to do what she wants to do with her body. Abhorrent.
Men do not have the same rights as women when is comes to reproduction thanks to biology. Is it fair? No. What can we do about it? Nothing, just accept it.
Until men can carry babies to term the decision to have an abortion (or not) has to stay a right of the mother.