Letters: Taking ExceptionScience is not value-free
In response to your editorial "Stem-cell research: A return to science" (Tuesday), President Obama's decision to lift restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem-cell research does not separate ideology from scientific inquiry, but confuses them. It is based on an illegitimate premise that science is value-free and not in need of appropriate ethical restraints.
The Catholic Church embraces sound scientific inquiry and promotes the use of scientific research that ensures the common good and the dignity of the human person. But the church will always speak out strongly against the false ideology of scientism, which makes illegitimate use of science to achieve ends that run contrary to the good of human society.
The president's executive order has opened a Pandora's Box of ethical problems that will never be solved by the underlying utilitarian principles that guide a large percentage of the scientific community. Scientific research should not be done simply because it can be done. The Catholic Church must speak out against the false values that masquerade in the form of true ones. The president's executive order is one such instance.
In the words of Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. bishops conference's pro-life committee, the executive order is "a sad victory of politics over science and ethics."
Father Dennis J. Billy
John Cardinal Krol Chair
of Moral Theology
St. Charles Borromeo Seminary
Overbrook
More:
Christine M. Flowers: Paging Dr. Frankenstein..WHEN President Obama lifted the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, the supporters screamed in joy - "Science over ideology!" - like charismatics at an old-time revival.
Ironically, these advocates of unfettered embryonic experimentation are just as ideological as they accuse the other side of being. The difference is that for them, science is the creed, and blind faith the commandment.
I can't say I'm surprised at this development. We who champion life over choice saw the writing on the wall months ago. During the campaign, Obama didn't hide his liberal stance on abortion rights, one that put him far to the left of most Americans, including many in his own party.
Still, I'm deeply troubled by the self-congratulatory rhetoric from the president's supporters who claim that the debate has been moved to a higher ground.
That's code for "Listen up, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. You had the audacity to believe that a passel of cells are more important than real humans, and that you could shove your religion down our throats?"
And so, the many Americans who believe that one form of human life shouldn't be exploited to serve another have been put in our places. Shown up for the heartless creatures we truly are - people who want Michael J. Fox and children confined to wheelchairs to suffer endlessly.
Well, before they get too excited about all this brand-new lab material, I have a message for the starry-eyed science-worshippers:
Don't kid yourselves into thinking that ideology has been purged from this debate. It's still there, guiding the presidential pen, allowing tax dollars to be used for ethically questionable initiatives. It's the ideology of scientific arrogance.
The Wall Street Journal said it best: "The question of whether to destroy human embryos for research purposes . . . is . . . about how we will treat members of the human family at the very dawn of life; about our willingness to seek alternative paths to medical progress that respect human dignity . . . we can only hope, in the years ahead, that scientific creativity will make embryo destruction unnecessary and that as a society we will not pave the way to the brave new world with the best medical intentions."
Now that they have a sympathetic president, scientists don't need to be creative anymore. They don't need to seek those "alternative paths," even those that have shown a great deal more promise than embryonic research. Fortunate for them, since they might actually be able to see that medical progress and ethics aren't mutually exclusive.
The problem isn't that scientists actually delight in the destruction of innocent human life. It's more that many of them - and the supporters of their research - consider the work to be above the mundane quibbles and qualms about morality that trouble the rest of us - beyond the slippery slopes, immune to Pandora and her infamous box.
Those scientists and their supporters are ordinary folks who believe they're on a divine mission to alleviate human suffering (even though some don't believe in an actual divinity).
Unfortunately, that's sometimes a simple-minded definition of progress. Especially if you define "progress" as allowing a paralyzed child to walk again, it's hard to argue that a few cells containing all the elements of humanity deserve protection as well.
That's the insidious dilemma for opponents of embryonic research. We have to confront family members who are desperate to ease a loved one's pain. Have to explain why it's wrong to experiment on embryos that would otherwise be destroyed. (Even have to deal with liberals who have, miraculously, discovered a deep affection for Nancy Reagan.)
If we point out that, despite life-saving need, indiscriminate organ-harvesting is against the law, or stealing tissue from a corpse is a crime, even for someone who really "needs it," they don't listen.
Well, maybe this will register.
With a stroke of his pen, the president has, for the moment, ended the debate on whether we should enter this brave new world. Now it's just a question of how far in we will travel, how much power we'll give the priests of science. What was that about the death of ideology?
published Friday, March 13, 2009
Philadelphia Daily News
Non-Bonus Round:
Politics - President Obama's Stem Cell Stand Is Immature by Charles Krauthammer
Last week, the White House invited me to a signing ceremony overturning the Bush (43) executive order on stem cell research. I assume this was because I have long argued in these columns and during my five years on the President's Council on Bioethics that, contrary to the Bush policy, federal funding should be extended to research on embryonic stem cell lines derived from discarded embryos in fertility clinics.
I declined to attend. Once you show your face at these things you become a tacit endorser of whatever they spring. My caution was vindicated...
Click Here For Complete Editorial