A good analysis of the situation Michael. We can't stop it, so we might as well get involved ourselves, so that we could influence the whole project. A similar argument was made vis-a-vis the hydrogen bomb. The Soviets were going to get it, therefor we should as well, if only to match their capabilities. And I would rather have American business' do the work, because the odds are they will lead the field, and thus controlling them further down the line will have a greater effect than outright banning US research does at this point.

Did you just compare pinochet to people who object to genetically modified foods? There are many credible scientists (whom even supporters of GM would call credible) that would be surprised to hear they were murderous.

As somewhat of a liberal and mildly partisan Democrat, the whole stem-cell debate makes my day.

Damn near every big issue these past 20 or so years has managed to divide the Democrats in one way or another. There's never been a shortage of Party coalition conflict, it seems. And then along comes the stem-cell debate to drive a rift between the Religious Right and the more libertarian business-types. Seems like karma, to me. I'm three shades to the wind.

Noche: Did you just compare pinochet to people who object to genetically modified foods?

No. I didn't.

Noche,

Let me clarify what I did do.

I compared Pinochet to Communists. And I compared the people who object to genetically-modified food to the Bush Adminstration.

Michael, it's times like these that I wish I knew you off-line. I have a chain of reasoning that says that advances in biotech will ultimately lead to the end of democracy, but it's too long for a simple reply.

Basically, if inborn characteristics of personality and aptitude can be bought for your children-- even as the range of capability possible expands considerably, then it undermines the basic assumption of democracy. All people would not be created equal. And this even as the personal power available to an individual increases thanks to technology.

Anyway, I largely agree with you. The problem is that this technology will be developed, and someone will be the first to use it. Are the social changes that comes with this inevitable? I'm worried that they are.

Either way, you're also right in saying that tilting at windmills probably won't have an effect on whether we benefit from this technology-- except for this: the expertise of the top researchers and laboratories will be centered abroad. That has a way of accreting power and prosperity.

Can we do without? Probably. There will be many breakthroughs into new foundation technologies: nanotech, robotics, artificial intelligence, materials science. We're leading in many of these fields. And there's plenty of non-stem cell genetics to be studied.

Either way, though, there isn't much to be done. The technology will advance whether we buy it or build it.

Oh, and check out this link:

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/index.html

It is amusing to read your highbreasted declarations of how good America is and how incredibly smart and sly you Americans are.

So Bush forbate domestic stem cell research? Ha-ha, we'll just buy the results from the czech research.

So the silly Europeans don't want to eat genetically manipulated corn flakes? Ha-ha, so we'll MAKE them! Either through the WTO or by INVADING THEIR COUNTRIES! That'll teach them.

FYI, the Europeans (meaning here the responsible food ministries etc) aren't all that negative to using genetically modified foodstuff. They just require a minimum of proof that these things are safe. Which the fat cats producing them have been unable to show yet.

In such a fine dynamic society as yours, you'll eat these foods and either they'll prove to be harmless, which we all hope for, or your kids will start developing odd genetic problems. Like fingers growing out of their forehead. Like being born without a brain. Like cancer at the age of five. Which all may sound quite funny to you now, but won't be if it really happens.

After all the stupid and evil things that you guys have done to the rest of the world (say Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) you still regard yourselves to be the saviours of the world?

The problem is, the rest of the world regards you as the place where the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

You have now the entire Muslim world as your enemies, China, most of Europe, the third world. Don't fool yourself thinking that everything is just fine. How everyone is trading with you, how your corporations own bits and pieces of everything everywhere, how your military has hundreds of bases all over the world.

We're all just waiting for you to stumble. To make that one wrong step. And when you do, like every pompous ass big power in history has, we'll get you. And we'll get you with gusto. You have forfeited your right to superpowerness long time ago. Adjust yourselves to a new image of the USA. The one where your people goes to Mexico to search for jobs.

You MJT, represent everything that America is hated for. Falseness, double standards, shortsightedness. I will laugh at you when you start begging people for money to pay for your physical degeneration, resulting from your eating of genetically manipulated food.

OK, go ahead and ban now, you intellectual Lilliput.

Mr. Slave on the wagon,

You just couldn't resist, could you? You admit you're a troll and you don't even care. Of course you're banned, then. Anyone who willfully engages in trollish behavior is banned.

Eschew hatred, Mr. Slave. If Europe stumbles, I will not laugh or smile.

Please don't take this personally, Michael, but this 'analysis' is sophomoric at best (I won't even comment on the above posts in the comments box).

Here is why I believe your piece was sophmoric: you are confusing federal funding with progress. No where in your piece do you say how America is being 'left behind' in research. All you list is a quote from the Boston Globe, which only states that there are more stem cell lines in foreign countries. OK, how is that more progress?

Rather than catching the vaporness (since scientific progress is not defined by the net number of experiments but quality results), you then embark on a lofty prism to divide civilization into two parts(!).

No one is stopping embryonic stem cell research in America. Universities have set up their own systems, other companies have done the same. So what if there is no federal funding? By your logic, any dollar not directed to research science's coffers means "research denied". My point: when did science progress become defined solely by the rate of funding? There is lots of funding for AIDS research but not a lot of progress. Why is this, Michael, if, as you say, federal funding means progress?

Scientists will always tell you they need more funding. In the same way, so will artists say they need more funding (else their 'art' will be "denied"). Or workers, or teachers, etc. etc. etc. Be wary of what scientists say on this issue, Michael, for they are not immune to self-interest.

I think the money spent on education ought to be lessened (since education depends on much much more than merely money). By your context, I would be considered 'anti-education'. I don't think plays and art ought to be subsidized by the government. By your context, I would be 'anti-art'.

One would think that since I disagree with subsidized farming that I would want people to go without food and starve!

You were too eager to jump into the conservatives-with-pitchforks mode. There is this myth of some vast 'religious right' suddenly coming off black helicopters and (carrying pitchforks) denying poor America scientific research. This would be true if there was a law that prevented such research. There is no law, it is only a money matter.

Federal funding is not given to stem cell research using resources from abortion clinics (for the obvious controversial reasons). But did you know that stem cells can be obtained in other ways, as well? And, lo and behold, there is no limit on federal funding on these forms of stem cell research in America.

Most people do not know that (content) because they are guided by their context (that some 'wave' of religious right just swung out, with pitchforks, to stop scientific research!). No one is opposed to the research.

Remember the scientific experiments like Tuskagee study or US study that had kids eat radioactive cereal? People protested that for the obvious reasons. By your logic, they can be nothing but 'anti-science' and 'statist'.

I think this is more of a pro-choice issue. When someone is forced to give money (taxes, your money) that is to be used on something incredibly wrong to your beliefs, religous or otherwise, where is the choice in the matter?

As for Postrel's book, here is a review that sums up my attitude for it (even though I generally don't like the website)

http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=50&sortorder=issue

Biotechnology is a bit over-hyped right now. These stem cells are promised to deliver all these things. But if you look at the scientific history, we keep hearing 'great promises'. The research that changes the world is almost always the unexpected. I think this stem cell research will be a footnote in history that goes with the 'great hopes, but we found out we aren't half as smart as we thought we are' category.

"I will laugh at you when you start begging people for money to pay for your physical degeneration, resulting from your eating of genetically manipulated food."

This sounds like a variation of a Monte Python script.

Anyway, a couple of points. Biotechnology is a huge industry that involves agriculture, genetics, pharmacuticals. Stem cell research has great potential but there are lots of profitable areas to pursue that are orthogonal to it, so I think its a huge overstatement to say that the U.S. is behind in this sector.

Secondly, thanks to the Internet and sophisticated enhancements in reverse engineering the days of scientific hegemony by any country (or company) is quickly coming to an end.

Jonathan,

Did you read Virginia's book, or only the review?

I realize stem cell research is not banned, it is restricted. My point is that it should not be restricted because other countries who do not restrict it may otherwise leave us behind. People in this country have invented so many things, pushed through so many scientific breakthroughs. We shouldn't get in our own way, because that isn't our way.

Jonathan: When someone is forced to give money (taxes, your money) that is to be used on something incredibly wrong to your beliefs, religous or otherwise, where is the choice in the matter?

Peaceniks want to defund the military. They could make the same argument. People who hate cars could say they don't want their taxes going to pay for roads. People who hate cops...I could go on.

You ask where is the choice? The choice is at the ballot box. Vote for conservatives if you don't want stem cell research funded. If you don't want to pay for a police force, move to Deschutes County, Oregon, where right-libertarians and conservatives are gutting the sherrif's office because they don't want to pay for it. Want to defund the military? Vote for Dennis Kucinich.

Michael,
This article highlights the difference between embryonic stem cells, ESCs and adult stem cells ASCs. It was interesting to note most of the major medical breakthroughs have come from ASCs and not ESCs. Sadly it has been reduced to ethics and politics when it's really about money and funding. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38633

Michael, if you're going to argue that stem-cell research is a positive good that should be funded by the government, I won't argue with you. But then you can hardly claim to be a dynamist who "let others do as they will, permitting creativity and innovation to flourish". It seems to me that the dynamic position would be to be against both restrictions and government funding. Here's two questions that should be debated: are embryonic stem cells better for research than adult stem cells? How would it affect research if the government favored the former over the latter?

Hei Lun Chan: It seems to me that the dynamic position would be to be against both restrictions and government funding.

I don't think so, unless government funding replaced private research. I think I see your point, though, if you mean funding might come with heavy-handed rules.

MJT--

I think this is a case of a very close call that was decided with a great deal of care and input from medical ethicists, physicians and scientists. President Bush's decision was made as someone who believes in the sanctity of the unborn. (I, by the way, mildly support abortion on pragmatic grounds.) Taking tissue from dead fetuses, to put it bluntly, is not a black-and-white issue.

Although Bush's decision did not break the way many would have liked, it was not frivolously made, and had genuine philosophical and ethical underpinnings. You can disagree with it and the consequences, but the moral case can be made for both sides.

Hei Lun Chan:

> are embryonic stem cells better for research than adult stem cells?

Without adequately funded basic research, the scientific answer is "we don't know".

> How would it affect research if the government favored the former over the latter?

It really depends on which stem cell type is more effective for regenerative therapy. If basic research on one type is favored over the other, and that type is ineffective, then this will delay the introduction of medical therapies to a measurable cost of life equal to the mortality trait of any particular disease X the delay. For example, if a fetal stem cell therapy is more effective than adult stem therapy for the treatment of Alzheimers disease, and the delay in researching a dead end takes an extra 5 years to be implemented, than the global cost will roughly be: mortality rate X population size X time delayed?
(e.g., ~2.7 deaths by Alzheimer's per 1000 people per year X ~7 billion or so people x5 years = ~100 million lives? Obviously, these are rough but large numbers). Anybody still awake? Sorry for the math problem.

If the dissemination of the treatment is stalled globally (by say, laws against stem cell research/treatments, or weird intellectual property wars against/between Big Pharmaceutical Corps), you can simulate this by increasing the number of years delayed to 10 or 20 or whatever, and running the same calculation.

Naturally, for the delay in introducing treatments for more common/lethal diseases like heart disease or cancer, the cost in human lives will be higher. The basic (or academic) scientific community tends to pool it's research by publishing in internationally recognized journals (e.g., Cell, Science, Nature Genetics, etc.), so by removing the very large (and very productive) group of US researchers from this communal pool of scientific knowledge, this will slow down the advance of global research on this project considerably.

Jonathan
> So what if there is no federal funding?

I'm about as immersed in this topic as one can get (I do research in both private and public labs) and certainly biased, but federal grants tend to fund basic research, while private labs budget R&D for applied (near term, immediate benefit) research. The public benefits from (and basically pays for) both, but it's a mistake to think that businesses will take up the slack on this. Academic labs are where the majority of the bleeding edge-high risk research happens, because that sort of research usually isn't a cost effective business strategy.

Rob

> All people would not be created equal.

People are unequal now. For example, as an Evil Lab Gnome ™, I'm probably eviller, more gnomelike, and certainly more, um, in a lab, than most people you're likely to run across. The important thing is that people are treated as equals under the law. This is already somewhat undermined (as advocates use background or gender or ethnicity to argue for their clients behalf), but I don't think sub-populations of smarter, healthier, gene tinkered kids will destroy democracy. These populations already exist naturally in our feisty democratic society, tend to self segregate (by school/income/etc.), and its hard to see how they're currently anything but assets in our diverse polity. It's good that you're thinking through the implications of these issues, as they'll probably be quite relevant in our lifetime. As a quick aside, if anyone's looking to make a blond haired/blue eyed army, peroxide and contact lenses are a WAY cheaper way to go than molecular biology.

Sorry to be so disagreeable and ranty, but the topics all of you posted are both interesting, and near and dear.

Rob,
Perhaps you confuse 'all humans are created, equal under the law and equal before their Creator' with 'all humans are created uniform of capacity.'

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal... has been tested over time to be a valid way of perceiving people, ALL people, as regards our self-governance under a common law; and before the Lord, God Almighty.

Equality under the law =/= uniformity of treatment, just as 'justice' does not equate to 'law-and-order'. Both are needed, both are legitimate, law and justice.

But I believe justice requires a higher devotion, a wiser application than strict word-for-word reading of 'The Law'.

I noted the other day that a German? company is now claiming they can creat stem cells without taking them from a human fetus. Ummmmm.

As one writer noted above, over the years we have routinely heard how this or that new technology has tremendous potential ( interferon comes to mind) that did not pan out to any degee those claimed.

We shall see in the next few years if Stem cells really are the miracle claimed.

Banning or restricting research and development of anything that isn’t unquestionably harmful goes against the American grain.

Is there anything that we'd see is unquestionably harmful these days? We're so incredibly nihilistic and flooded with PC moral relativism that I'm not sure anymore.

I've got no firm position on stem cell research, although I lean toward allowing it given that we live in an abortion culture. But there are a lot of things that other societies permit (slave labor, e.g.) that are economically advantageous that we prohibit because we deem them wrong.

Slave Labor is not, by any definition, economically advantageous. It leads a society to overutilization of labor and underutilization of capital, as rents are driven by the market but wages can be set artificially low.

Gene Thug and Sharps Shooter mention equality under the law as distinct from equality of talents. There is also moral equality: equality under moral principles, law or no. Not only does the law treat the man with an IQ of 140 the same as the man with an IQ of 100, but moral principles do, too. If you promise to give a friend a lift to the airport but at the last minute feel like blowing him off, his IQ has nothing to do with the whether you should keep your promise. If this seems too obvious to mention, well, that's what they meant by "self-evident". But you have to mention it, because people have always tend to confuse talent with right.

A problem in America is that kids don't give a crap about science and so don't study it. My boss can't find American PhDs to come work in his lab, so he has to import most of his staff from Europe and China.

There may be left reactionaries but so what. Sure there are right technocrats but, again, so what. It's the sway that the anti-stem right has in the Republican party that matters here. Yet another reason why we need a change.

Hi all,

The main question about embryonic stem cell research, is 'when does human life begin?' If you think it begins at conception, then ESC is the equivalent of nabbing people off the street and killing them in medical experiments. Should the US do this because some other country also allows it?

You don't have to be a member of the religious right to believe life begins at conception. Consider that a fertilized embryo has 46 chromosomes, human DNA, and unique DNA, different from both mother and father. This makes it human. ESC research is thus just plain wrong.

Next, ESC research is very much promoted but has shown little results. Adult stem cell research is way ahead. ESC has severe problems in immune response and teratoma formation. ASC does not have these problems. ASC does have its own problems, but thats why there is research in it. There's lots of useful research to be done without the US promoting the use of embryo's in medical experiments.

For further reading, here is a link on the humanity of the embryo:

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

Here is another link with information about adult stem cell research:

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

Sincerely,

Marlon Clark

Michael,
several commenters have touched on this but I don't see how you can address the stem cell question without discussing the question of morality. In the 1940's Dr. Mengele (in addition to his genetic experiments that were little more than quackery) did some serious work on the type of "G" forces the human body could withstand; in the process of conducting these experiments he murdered many of his subjects. Still, morality aside, this work was important to the science of piloting jet planes. Clearly, no sane person would advocate that the United States needed to keep up with Dr. Mengele or risk losing an important industry; the immorality of his research is just too clear. I'm not saying that stem cell research falls anywhere near the Auschwitz experiments in moral terms; I'm just saying that you need to address the question before you denounce "moralistic posturing".

Jim

You're quite right to mention that there are other equalities that are important. Equality of opportunity shouldn't be forgotten either. Even in a world with genetically augmented people, it's better to have a society where people have the opportunity to figure out and do what they enjoy or excel at (or for any Nietzchian utopians out there, what bothers them the least).

Marlon, of course an embryo is a live human organism. But it doesn't seem to be a person. It becomes a person with time, but with the right technology even skin cells could be made to grow into people. Yet the death of a skin cell is not the death of a person. DNA and cell organelles aren't sufficient for personhood. Murder requires that there be someone killed. No one dies when a brainless embryo expires. (I don't mean to imply that having a brain renders the fetus a person, but lacking a brain certainly renders it a non-person.) So, it's okay to use its stem cells.

Michael --

I think you overestimate the significance of this issue. Much has been written recently about how far ahead of Europe the United States is in scientific research. Even the EU recently as a much as admitted that Europe had no hope of catching up with the US any time soon in this area. The USA is by a very wide margin the world leader in scientific research and development. With all of the moral and ethical issues surrounding stem cell research, we can afford not to be on the cusp here.

A) Upon what basis does the ban on new stem cells and federal funding lie?

I think that it was answered in several earlier posts. President Bush and some citizens, some scientests and some advisors believe abortion to be wrong and since abortion is part of getting new stem cells, stem cell research (or at least federal support for new cells) is wrong.

B) However, abortions are legal. Are fetuses aborted in order to provide stem cells or are aborted fetuses used to provide stem cells?

This is the pivotal point. I do not think that anyone has suggested that women would grow fetuses in order to be harvested. So stem cell research is dealing solely with babies that were already legally aborted. Ergo, the death has already happened. The living soul (as it were) is gone. What is left, is simply flesh and blood.

C) If the body is already dead, how is the removal of stem cells any different than organ donation?

I don't have an answer for this one.

Michael,

I thorughly agree with your story. Our system must remain dynamic, must continue to grow and change as our society grows and changes. The whole point of a Free Country, was that the individuals could make choices and change dynamicaly on their own. The rights not expressly given to the federal government were reserved for the State, or the Individual. The individual is the most dynamic human system possible.

But, some may say, "What about MY RIGHTS? I don't want my tax dollars spent supporting something I don't approve of." To those people I point to the current war in Iraq. Many people (apparently close to half) don't approve of the situation. Should they be permitted to revoke their tax support for our Millitary? What about people who don't believe that "faith-based groups" should recieve federal funding? What about people who don't support the death penalty? The government uses citizens tax dollars all of the time, doing things that the individual may not approve of. Think about the Medical Marijuana user, who faithfully pays their taxes... paying the salary of the DEA agent breaking down their door. Arguing for the Right to not support abortion stem cell research with taxes is a red herring and has no precedent in our society.

I for one, hope to see the rights of the State and of the Individual become more clearly focused. Gay Marriage isn't a federal issue, its a state issue. States should have the right (by statewide vote) to permit, deny, acknowledge or ignore gay marriage. If West Virgina permits gay marriage and Ohio denies it... then the gay people who want to marry should go live in a state that has similar views. Thats the beauty of State government, there are 50 possible combinations of rights and freedoms for an American citizen to choose from (or at least, there could be).

Imagine a State which outlawed gay marriage, abortion, no-fault divorce, permitted prayer by individuals in school and allowed the 10 commandments in the State and local courts. Wouldn't that appeal to many christian families in other states?

By the same token, another state could allow abortion, no-fault divorce, prayer on the part of the individual (but not led by teachers etc), and gay marriage. Many citizens would find that appealing.

As long as the Laws passed by the state did not infringe upon the Life Liberty and The Persuit of Happiness of others. Slavery and segregation, for example have been judged as impinging upon the rights and freedoms of an equal. No matter what a State may desire, those categories are superceeded by the federal government.

If all federal laws, that are not expressly concerned with the responsibilities outlined for the federal government, were removed to the domain of the State, we could drastically reduce the size of our federal government. Federal taxes should be less, since the federal government would do less. The state tax would be higher or lower, depending on what the Individuals in that State chose to do within their state. This would give the Individual much more control of their tax dollars, much more say about the environment they lived in, and raised their children in. entire States could ban strip clubs, while other states could open Amsterdam Cafe's... each State dynamically meeting the needs of their citizens, while contributing to and supporting the Federal system.

That is a dynamic society.

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord

PS - If anyone can assist me in identifying which party this post most closely resembles, I'd appreciate it. I wouldn't mind joining a party, but I can't sem to find one that I can agree with on more than some topics.

Tosk

You don't have to be a member of the religious right to believe humans are zebras. Consider that a fertilized embryo has 46 chromosomes, human DNA, and unique DNA, different from both mother and father. This makes it a Grevy's Zebra. Zebra research is thus just plain wrong.

At a close secondhand for years I saw the pressure against "bleeding edge" science, and by no means do all come from the direction of the Government. Organizations like PETA have abandoned reason for Bambi and make life very difficult for researchers, the culture of indentured servitude forced on Ph.D. candidates (and increasingly on postdocs) forces talent out of the pool, scientific literacy seems actively distasteful to certain elites in the Humanities, etc. etc. etc. We really may be seeing the end of a golden age of basic research. Practically speaking I don't know what the consequences will be, but as a science fan I find that thought depressing.

The Futher And Its Enemies provides a fresh way to look at political and social instincts, at least as manifest in Western society. (I read the review referred to by Jonathan. Funny. The book was trashed for not being lockstep Libertarian. The irony was lost on the author.) Highly recommended.

By Postrel's reasoning, it's the Stasists on each side that keep the debate on embryonic stem cell research effectively "off the table". On one side, the Science Should Be Free (SSBF) team won't even look at the ethical concerns of people who feel odd about potential humans ending up in petri dishes. By the SSBF rulebook, embry != human, therefore the other side is just stooopid. On the Every Gamete Is Precious (EGIP) team the rulebook says that the potential and the actual are equivalent, or so don't do that or you'll go blind. So the prospects of getting out of the current static situation are slim.

Interesting that Jim should bring up Tuskeegee. Today we have a real consensus about informed consent and (adult) human experimentation. That consensus came about through transparency and dialog, things that weren't in abundance until relatively recently. Transparency we've still got. Dialog has become difficult.

Sorry for the ramble.

'tosk: try reason.com, you're sounding at least small-L libertarian, Postrel is at least small L.

Viva Python. Someone had to do it:
http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/everyspe.htm

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate

/ D A7 D D7 / G D E7 A7 / D D7 G Gm / D A7 D - /

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found

{Refrain 2}
Every sperm is wanted
Every sperm is good
Every sperm is needed
In your neighborhood

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon
Spill theirs just anywhere
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care

Every sperm is useful
Every sperm is fine
God needs everybody's
Mine, and mine, and mine

Let the pagans spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill and plain
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain

"The Futher And Its Enemies"?

Sorry for that; I must be going blind...

Life begins before conception--life begins at sperm.
I will see every masturbator on this thread up on charges of murder.

In fact, life begins at bacteria. I will see every gene splicer who abuses E. Coli up on charges of vivisection and cruelty to living organisms.

Tosk --

You are conflating legality with ethics -- just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical. Moreover, just because something is legal does not argue in favor of the government funding it: for example, consumption of alcohol is legal, but I would take issue with government buying everyone a beer.

Stem cell research was partially banned after mature deliberation and on objectively reasonable grounds. The opposite result could obtain using the same methodology, but did not with the particular actors involved. If you disagree with this decision, you certainly are free to pull the political levers at your disposal to urge a reversal of the policy. Denigrating your opponent's position as illogical when you merely mean it to be improvident does nothing to advance dialogue about the issue.

Ben,

The problem is that morals, especially morals when dealing with such an issue as abortion and stem cell research, are not something set in stone.

There is no touchstone where people can say "A is immoral and B is not". All anyone can say is "That seems immoral to me".

Where is the moral difference in the following:

1. A person is killed in a car accident. They have signed up to donate their organs. A scientist procures their heart and uses it for government funded research, developing a new life-saving procedure.

2. A fetus is aborted after the mother and father decide that is the best course of action for them. They sign a document allowing the fetus to be used by science. A scientist procures some stem cells and uses it for government funded research, developing a new life-saving procedure.

Where is the moral difference? If it is in the abortion itself, then that is the moral discussion, not the use of dead tissue. If the moral issue is not in the abortion itself, then how is use of dead tissue different than use of dead tissue? does the fetus somehow have a greater right to remain intact posthumously?

Tosk

Tosk,

I think the "ick" factor has a lot to do with this. Same goes for Europe banning genetically-modified food.

That's not the whole story, obviously, but I do think it's part of it.

As for life beginning at conception or not, I see life and gestation as more of a continuum rather than something that's binary. This could be debated for eons, though. If I saw life beginning at conception, I would be anti-abortion. So I sympathize, though I don't agree with, that point of view.

I think you're probably right Michael. It seems to me to simply be an extention of the anti-abortion view. If one is against abortion, they cannot be for research done on aborted fetuses.

However, that takes us back to the point that it isn't the stem cell research which was denied on "objectively reasonable grounds", but abortion.

My view could be wrong, I don't claim that I'm right, its just what I see from my perspective. I would love for someone from the other side to discuss this.

Ben,

I would love to use my political power to work to change that law, as well as a few others... however, I'm told here, on a pretty regular basis that if I vote against Bush, then I'm a Leftist Anti-American, who supports the Islamo-facists and secretly hates all the poor people in Iraq. ;-)

Tosk

Funding research into something that would not or could not occur throught the normal supply and demand of the market is ridiculous anyway. I agree with your supposition that the Bush Adminisitration is being too Medieval about stem cell research, but I disagree that the federal government should subsidize any of this. The government taking my money without my consent for this is inexcusable. Did you say "stasist" or "statist"? Because this assumption that the government should fund any of it is a statist position.

Mr. Underhill,

In principle I agree with you. I think that the federal government should have very little responsibilities beyond maintaing the Life, Liberty and Persuit of Happiness of its citizens.

However, if the Federal Government is going to subsidize "some" research projects, there should be a better standard for which research projects get funding, than "My Deity says No".

If however, Bush planned on actually scaling back the government and decreasing its influence in State affairs, I would support him. However, he seems to pick and choose where the government should meddle.

'Tosk

"Everybody For President: This year vote for yourself!"

Tosk --

1. I do not intend to get into a debate with you about morality. My post really was not about whether stem cell research is moral or not. I have not really studied the issue sufficiently to express a view, and I cannot get interested enough to do so.

My comment was procedural, rather than substantive. I was simply arguing that the decision resulted after the issue was considered at length from a variety of different angles and that it is objectively reasonable. Given that, I think it is unfair to characterize it in the way that you did.

2. You commented that "I'm told here, on a pretty regular basis that if I vote against Bush, then I'm a Leftist Anti-American, who supports the Islamo-facists and secretly hates all the poor people in Iraq."

I will vote for Bush because I believe that the WOT is a more important issue than everything else combined and that a Kerry win would be bad for the war effort. (I do not argue that you like Islamofascists or intend to support them, only that you will be doing so as a by-product of your vote). The great thing about democracy, however, is that you have a right to be wrong and to tell me to go straight to hell! I support you in that, and I wish more people understood it. ;-)

Cheers,
Ben

Tosk: I'm told here, on a pretty regular basis that if I vote against Bush, then I'm a Leftist Anti-American, who supports the Islamo-facists and secretly hates all the poor people in Iraq

You know I don't believe that, right? My wife intends to vote for Kerry. (She also, by the way, was happy to see Saddam's regime get whacked.)

>Did you read Virginia's book, or only the review?

I have read the book. But I linked to the review because it describes the points better than I could.

Anyone who takes that book seriously is a pop-intellectual. The premise the book is on is very poor, of dynamism vs. statism. Since you take it seriously, let me ask you some questions:

Since 'democracy' originates in ancient greece, shouldn't it be considered 'statist' as compared to the newer ideas of republican form of government? (the founding fathers thought so. Read the Constitutional Convention's debates)

Homosexuality is a very very old idea, any civilization that embraced it is now in ruins. So should it be considered statist or dynamist?

This can go on and on. Placing 'change' or dynamism as a moral element is assinine. It is a highschooler argument. Here is an example as to why. Both Postrel and I are pro-capitalism. She is pro-capitalism because it is 'dynamist', thus changing. I am pro-capitalism because it is simply human nature being itself, that it is natural society unleashed (as opposed to socialism which is artificial society, a society at the point of the gun).

I have more respect for a 'statist' than for Postrel. What is worse than seeing a good cause attacked? It is to see it defended incorrectly. Postrel does this again and again.

If you look at people who have changed the world (let us take Mozart for an example), their education was not 'new and revolutionary', it is very very old, very classical and (oh that word) rigid.

Shakespeare, in Two Gentlemen from Verona, mock the renaissance idea of people traveling from country to country to become 'educated' and says that wit and wisdom comes from a guy trapped within his own room.

Postrel will see Mozart's new music or Shakespeare's new plays and call it 'dynamist'. Well, no duh, history only remembers things that change, not things that stay the same. This is why her premise is schoolish.

>I realize stem cell research is not banned, it >is restricted.

Amazing! Government gives funding for real estate housing in the $4 million and up range for lower income housing. Since the government will not fund my real estate ventures of $3 million dollars and down, then, by your very definition, I am being restricted and the government is, by its act, restricting me.

Not funding something cannot be considered restricting it. It is that mindset that says, "If government is not funding the arts, then the government is against the arts." Therefore, I will say, "Government is not funding Jonathan's existence, therefore, government is RESTRICTING my existence." You see how silly this is?

>My point is that it should not be restricted >because other countries who do not restrict it >may otherwise leave us behind. People in this >country have invented so many things, pushed >through so many scientific breakthroughs. We >shouldn't get in our own way, because that isn't >our way.

There is your answer. America has achieved many scientific breakthroughs. Yet, if this 'religious right' with pitchforks were stopping everything, then you come to an impossible contradiction.

BEFORE: the country could be argued to be much more religious. Yet, it still became the leader of science in the world.

If religous views did not stop science then, how, pray tell, will it stop it now?

I should note that governments such as Communism and such have a very bad scientific discovery rate. How can this be if 'religious faith' had no existence in the attitudes of government?

>>>>Jonathan: When someone is forced to give money >>>>(taxes, your money) that is to be used on >>something incredibly wrong to your beliefs, >>>>religous or otherwise, where is the choice in >>>>the matter?

>Peaceniks want to defund the military.

Nice try, Michael. The Supreme Court already ruled on this matter. I would advise looking up why the Supreme Court said "NO" to the peacniks but "YES" to people like the Amish (such as the Yager case).

>People who hate cars could say they don't want >their taxes going to pay for roads. People who >hate cops...I could go on.

What about those who say, "I have no children, why should I pay for education?" The answer is that they depend on people growing up educated.

We know roads exist. We know tanks and jetplanes exist. But there is only hype with stem cell research. To say that its benifets (which currently are non-existant and imaginary) will outweigh all supposed problems (such as harvesting stem cells from aborted babies) is, itself, a matter of faith.

This is why your analogy doesn't work. Those that want the funding restricted are not the ones acting on faith here, it is the ones who are saying any obstacle, any guidelines will 'restrict' it are.

There are no stem cell miracles.

There are no stem cell benifets.

Heck, why not get government to fund corporations to research 'cold fusion'. The benifets could be society changing! Liberals would say, "What! Funding corporations! This will not do!" And conservatives will reply, "You are anti-science." But its wrong because it is all hype, currently.

If stem cells create benifets, then the debate will change. "But how can we get benifets if we don't fund it?" Because scientific discovery doesn't depend on money, but on the minds itself. This is why education can always have its funding increased yet still have its results get lower. Education depends on the minds, not on the money. How is research different?

Remember, we aren't half as smart as we think we are. And, from experience, most things I see that are 'hyped' rarely live up to its expectations. Stem Cell Research will most likely join the long list of 'overhyped' and 'low outcome' research in history.

>You ask where is the choice? The choice is at >the ballot box. Vote for conservatives if you >don't want stem cell research funded. If you >don't want to pay for a police force, move to >Deschutes County, Oregon, where right->libertarians and conservatives are gutting the >sherrif's office because they don't want to pay >for it. Want to defund the military? Vote for >Dennis Kucinich.

Michael, please read the following very carefully.

Are you saying that freedom is merely to cast MY VOTE?

If this is true, then we come to a very bad scenario. A people vote in an election. Yet, once the election is over, those people who were so wise, so good, so observant are now reduced to matter of clay for the new legislators to shape.

Rousseau made this argument. Are you making it too? Is freedom, to you, simply a ballot box?

Jonathan: Are you making it too? Is freedom, to you, simply a ballot box?

No, of course not. And I have no idea why you would even ask me that question.

I only mentioned the ballot box aspect of it because you were talking about freedom to pay or not pay for X with your tax dollars. You don't have the freedom to pull your contribution to the treasury away from something just because you don't like it. This is not new.

You're more than welcome to protest the funding of things you don't like, and I'm free to protest the restriction on funding. That's all we're doing here. The other freedoms (Bill of Rights, etc.) don't have much to do with funding or not funding stem cell research.

Jonathan, your denigration of people who liked Postrel's book as "pop intellectuals" would carry more weight if you'd actually understood what she wrote.

Since 'democracy' originates in ancient greece, shouldn't it be considered 'statist' as compared to the newer ideas of republican form of government? (the founding fathers thought so. Read the Constitutional Convention's debates)

Homosexuality is a very very old idea, any civilization that embraced it is now in ruins. So should it be considered statist or dynamist?

First off, the term she uses is "stasists" not "statists". Secondly, her book isn't about forms of government or lifestyles or educational systems. It's about preferred approaches to handling societal problems or questions. Third, the book isn't meant to be a scientific treatise. She's not out to prove anything, she's just describing what she sees using a fresh framework.

For what it's worth, her approach goes a long way toward explaining why ANSWER can actively support Ba'athists and radical Islamicists, groups that would have ANSWER first against the wall after the revolution is over.

Finally, most civilizations that have embraced anything lie in ruins. That's what happens to civilizations that end. If you can show that all civilizations embrace homosexuality right before the walls start to fall, I'll pay attention.

For those interested in reading original sources, go here.

I was simply arguing that the decision resulted after the issue was considered at length from a variety of different angles and that it is objectively reasonable.

Ben,

There are a number of reasons to argue that Bush's council on Bioethics fails to meet a certain... criteria for diverse consideration. Reason's science correspondent Ronald Bailey covered this at length here http://reason.com/rb/rb012302.shtml . The journal Science has also covered this at length (but I don't think their articles are freely accessible). In esssence, Kass, the head of the president's bioethics council and by all accounts a thoughtful and reasonable guy, happens to be a strong opponent of artificial insemination and a proponent of mortality (I can't find his essay just now, but I think his argument was that suffering and death is ennobling as it tends to make people more spiritual. It was posted on arts & letters daily, fwiw). Consequently, Kass happens to really not like advances reproductive/med tech. Though again, a fair guy, of his council of 17, 2 (-3? I can't recall) of the 4 original research scientists have resigned, leaving the group somewhat theologian/conservative activist heavy. Kass's committee may well be "objectively reasonable", I'm in no position to judge that, but it doesn't represent a consensus opinion between, say, the scientific and conservative theological/ethical/political communities, and it's hardly representative of America's diversity of opinions on these issues.

It's not surprising that Bush would select a guy with conservative ethics to advise him, but to have a bioethics council without the biologists, seems, IMO, to remove the scientific component from it. It's be more accurate to call the group a conservative ethics committee at this point.

At this point, the Council on Bioethics is a political group, not a scientific one, and I don't think it has quite the stature (certainly in the scientific community) that you might think it does.

Oy.

the above comment should say:

Kass happens to really not like advances in reproductive/med tech.

pardon the typo

Gene Thug --

Again, my point is procedural. Given the process, you cannot argue that the decision was irresponsible -- only that it is improvident. You clearly disagree with it. Fine. I have said before that I have no opinion on the substantive issue. But I do object to characterization of the policy as irresponsible.

Kass came to the commission with an axe to grind. So did everyone else. Anyone who knows anything about a subject obviously has an opinion, so I don't see how it would be possible to have an unbiased opinion on the commission.

Michael,

I think you overstate the effects of the actual decision by the Bush Administration. It was not nearly as draconian as you make it sound.

Research on pre-existing lines of embryonic stem cells, or any lines of adult stem cells can be funded by federal grants. Research on any stem cells can be funded by state grants or private funds. Given the amounts of money available in federal research funding for this specific topic (as opposed to grant money for all research topics), the net "restriction" on research opportunities is vanishingly small.

Sure, there will be more competition for state/private money to research new lines of embryonic stem cells. However, there will be less competition for federal money to investigate all other types of stem cell research, so the expected net result is a wash.

The lack of funding for the "easy route" of stem cell research may have the interesting, and helpful, side effect that gene therapy in this country may be developed through other perhaps more productive routes; recall, for instance, recent announcements that stem cells have been found in adult humans in fat tissue, in bone marrow, in the nose, etc. The best thing about these types of technology is that the patient's immune system does not have to be compromised to deal WITH THEIR OWN CELLS. Stem cells from another body, a fetus, invites a series of issues related to the fact that the donor and receiver are not the same person.

Sometimes constraints like the federal ban on stem cell research can be the Mother Of Invention.