The ethical concerns about a particular area of research are NOT the same as antipathy to science

See (http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/upd908f2.gif)

First, whether or not you agree w/ Pres. Bush’s views, I do not think it is fair to say that the Bush administration decision to limit federal funding of some embryonic stem cell research is a case of “ideology” trumping “science.”

In announcing his decision, Pres. Bush did not misrepresent the science of stem cells or its potential. Pres. Bush simply recognized that, like all human endeavors (including every profession), scientific research should be conducted within ethical bounds. People can argue about what those bounds should be, but I think we all agree that we should be guided by ethics at some level, or else we would be doomed to repeat abuses like the Tuskegee experiments.

I encourage you to review Pres. Bush’s August 2001 speech announcing his administration’s policy. (it may be found here: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html) It is noteworthy for how fair it is to both sides of the ethical debate and how accurately it presents the state of the science at the time as well as its prospects. These are the hallmarks of informed ethical judgment–precisely what we elect our leaders to do–and not dogmatic or reflexive “ideology”.

Second, even if you assume that ethical considerations are “ideological,” it is clear from his full statement that Pres. Obama has not removed “ideology” from his decision-making at all; he has just changed the ethical boundaries a bit. Although Pres. Obama has allowed federal funding for certain research that did not previously qualify, he retains other limits. He vehemently opposes cloning of embryos for reproductive purposes, and does so on the expressly moral grounds that such cloning is “wrong.” This certainly is not a scientific argument, it is an ethical one.

I think that Pres. Obama’s statement is disappointing precisely b/c it pretends to remove “ideology” from “scientific” decision-making, when in fact it announces a decision that is just as “ideological.”

Science can tell us much about the world and can open up many possibilities. It can inform (and must inform) our ethical judgments. But science cannot answer the ethical questions itself. I would appreciate a president who understands this important distinction, and who engages with the scientific community and the public in a forthright conversation of ethics, instead of pretending that ethical concerns are mere “ideologies” to be cast aside.

I’m a new visitor directed here from Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy blog.

And now, I’m afraid, a minor nit pick. There should be no apostrophe in “its” in the title. (Sorry.)

With climate change, university scientists need to prove that it exists, or they’re out of a job. Oil company scientists need to prove it doesn’t exist, or they’re out of a job. I don’t actually think this is true in a lot of cases, but it’s hard to get away from the argument.

I think all of science could do with an overhaul of the funding system. If scientists didn’t know where there money came from then they couldn’t be accused of trying to ‘please the bosses.’ I believe they have this sort of system in some of the science fields and I’d like to see it concerned for the field at large.

Let’s think of how many Americans are suffering from ailments and what this research can do for them. I’m sure everyone reading this knows someone important to them that is affected by one of these maladies.