Opinion> David Harsanyi> There S More To Life Than Science

	23 May 2012 Church of the Holy Contraception Are you sick and tired of these moralizing moralizers imposing their morality on the rest of us? I know I am. … Read More.
	16 May 2012 JPMorgan Proves We Don't Need More Regulation When banks generate huge profits, they are exploiting the American people, engaging in unadulterated greed and,… Read More.
	9 May 2012 Obama's Ridiculous To-Do List President Barack Obama has compiled a handy to-do list for Congress that, "if acted upon quickly, will … Read More.

There's More to Life Than Science

This week, President Barack Obama lifted the ban on federal funding for stem cell research that destroys human embryos, and instantly one of the most intellectually deceitful debates of the past decade was reignited.

The president claimed that from now on, we will "make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology." Others dropped inane phrases regarding the "proper role of science" and the need to "remove politics from science," as if science existed in a vacuum.

To begin with — though I disagree with the position — opposition to embryonic stem cell research is not the equivalent of opposition to "science." Opponents have an ethical position that concerns policy. They are not alone.

Many liberals oppose the expansion of nuclear energy or genetically modified foods, to offer just two examples. Why would they stand in the way of science? Well, I assume, they hold some principled reservations about the repercussions of those activities.

And if scientific decisions — or "facts" — should be the sole driver of policy, then why are the proponents of embryonic stem cell research placing any restrictions on the research?

After all, Congress clamps constraints on science all the time. In this case, limits (some coming via the wonderfully named Dickey-Wicker Amendment) ban the use of taxpayer funds to directly fund creation of and experimentation on human embryos within private clinics and also outlaw cloning.

Do you find cloning immoral or just super creepy? What if cloning held the potential to cure some menacing ailment or appreciably enhance our quality of life? Would it be less scary? Less wicked? Would you support it then?

Whatever the answer, those are moral queries, not "factual" ones. So why, then, is Washington selecting which discipline is tolerable and which one isn't? Aren't we simply placing a new morality on science?

For instance, why does Washington ban women from producing embryos for the sole purpose of having them destroyed later in the name of science? Isn't such a prohibition a moral and ideological question, as well? It is a woman's choice, is it not, to destroy her fetus without having to provide any justification? Then why should that same woman be barred from creating an embryo to potentially cure diabetes?

Science doesn't fret over motives.

Why does Washington?

Now, even if Obama meant it (and obviously he doesn't), allowing scientists to run policy could bring spectacularly dreadful consequences. We do not forfeit our tax policy to economists. Doctors do not run the health care industry. We don't let climatologists administrate energy policy, or we all would be cycling to community gardens for dinner and using solar panels to shield us from the cold, driving rain at night.

By permitting government to get into the embryonic stem cell funding business — which, despite what some reports claimed, never was "banned" — the issue was politicized by the White House. Washington funding, however it is allocated, threatens to generate and promote an industry of embryo creation and destruction in the name of research.

Whether you believe the existence of such an industry is a moral crisis or not is one thing. I don't know. But I do know that whatever promise stem cell research holds, it doesn't erase the fact that embryos aren't merely clusters of cells, but the initial stages of human life. That is about the only scientific "fact" in this debate.

After referring to budgets as "moral documents," some Democrats who support funding embryo destruction research demand hypocritically that their opponents expunge ideology from an issue that actually holds ethical implications.

Worse, they have dismissed anyone who opposes them as an anti-science troglodyte. It's a nifty way to undermine a debate. It's unfortunate, though, because this complex issue deserves more than cheap political posturing.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of "Nanny State." Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com. To find out more about David Harsanyi and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment

Sir;... I am forced to disagree with you, but don't worry about me getting a hernia because some folks are naturally disagreeble....Where you are wrong is this: The opposition of the ideologically minded to stem cell research is anti science, because it is not founded on a physical conception of man and of humanity, but of a metaphysical conception of humanity... Metaphysics is not science, but it is our history from Aristotle to the Declaration of Independence... To say all men are created equal is metphysics... To say that life conceives life is physics... But life also feeds on life... There are some kinds of life that can live on minerals, and an odd bit of sunshine, but they resulted from the offspring of some other offspring... And you may notice that our respect of life is not universal...There is no life form on the planet that has the support of our metaphysics even while all lives are supposed to be protected under the Judeo/Christian religion....The fact is, that we are intelligent; so we think of ourselves spiritually... But is that really intelligence, which resorts to science; or is it the imagination of youth that makes monsters of things that go bump??? Why do children believe is Magic and fairy tales??? Hasn't all of humanity in its primitive past believed so... And now we believe we are created by a God that no one takes to heart..If we accepted equality as a fact of God we would need little of science.... The sad or happy fact is that the dust of the dead feeds our crops...Their life we make our own... The animals we raise, or drive to their deaths to own their homes we make into our lives... It is a shame we value life so highly that we will, in a sense, cannibalize the dead for the stuff that dreams are....It is no less than we have always done.... Slaves used to be turned to sugar or cotton, and their empty husks discarded like so much trash...Those we could not enslave we killed outright... Even today we work ourselves and others into a early grave in support of ideology... So, Mr. Obama is doing right; even though what he is doing will almost certainly help the rich more than the poor, as all science does.... Where is the blessing of technology for the common man??? Since we have had the eight hour work day we have increased one man's ability to produce many times over... The pay off is less people working longer hours, finding their lives all the more rapidly turned into our lives and the wealth of the rich... Science alone is not the answer...Physical understanding is not enough...Moral understanding must everywhere be fed... What is not the answer, and has never been the answer is metaphysics....It is nonsense thought for stupid minds..I don't think a fraction of those pushing the metaphysical conception believe it for a moment...Their true goal is political power, or financial gain... .Thanks...Sweeney

Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:46 AM