>Like the guy or not, you have to admit that he presents a clear argument >about why science alone should never govern research.
Aside from the fact that Charles Krauthammeris a shill for the neocons, just examine your statement there. It is so mind boggling gob smacking so far out there that its in orbit. What do you want, correct moral and ideology committees examining all scientists. If so then perhaps yo don't know that is what happened in the Stalinist era and during the Cultural Revolution in China during the 60's and 70's. Never thought you'd be advocating communism. for that matter the Iranian and Saudi governments has similar committees. When they controlled Afghanistan the Taliban instituted similar groups. Accordingly why do you want the terrorists to win. > >I will note in advance that I am in favor of stem cell research (I worked >for a biotech company that does it, after all), but I am totally opposed to >the idea of creating embryos solely for the purpose of research. > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/12/AR2009031202764.html > >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. > >President Bush had restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell >research to cells derived from embryos that had already been destroyed (as >of his speech of Aug. 9, 2001). While I favor moving that moral line to >additionally permit the use of spare fertility clinic embryos, President >Obama replaced it with no line at all. He pointedly left open the creation >of cloned -- and noncloned sperm-and-egg-derived -- human embryos solely for >the purpose of dismemberment and use for parts. I am not religious. I do not >believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not >believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and >deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power >of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science and the >well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines >must be drawn. I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate >creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research -- >a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life >(even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end. > >On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists. >This is more than moral abdication. It is acquiescence to the mystique of >"science" and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as >Obama can believe this within living memory of Mengele and Tuskegee and the >fake (and coercive) South Korean stem cell research is hard to fathom. > >That part of the ceremony, watched from the safe distance of my office, made >me uneasy. The other part -- the ostentatious issuance of a memorandum on >"restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making" -- would have >made me walk out. > >Restoring? The implication, of course, is that while Obama is guided solely >by science, Bush was driven by dogma, ideology and politics. > >What an outrage. Bush's nationally televised stem cell speech was the most >morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American >president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best case for both his >view and the contrary view that until the last few minutes, the listener had >no idea where Bush would come out. > >Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was populated, as >his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of straw men. Such as his >admonition that we must resist the "false choice between sound science and >moral values." Yet, exactly 2 minutes and 12 seconds later he went on to >declare that he would never open the door to the "use of cloning for human >reproduction." > >Does he not think that a cloned human would be of extraordinary scientific >interest? And yet he banned it. > >Is he so obtuse as not to see that he had just made a choice of ethics over >science? Yet, unlike Bush, who painstakingly explained the balance of >ethical and scientific goods he was trying to achieve, Obama did not even >pretend to make the case why some practices are morally permissible and >others not. > >This is not just intellectual laziness. It is the moral arrogance of a man >who continuously dismisses his critics as ideological while he is guided >exclusively by pragmatism (in economics, social policy, foreign policy) and >science in medical ethics. > >Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has nothing to >say about what is permissible. Obama's pretense that he will "restore >science to its rightful place" and make science, not ideology, dispositive >in moral debates is yet more rhetorical sleight of hand -- this time to >abdicate decision-making and color his own ideological preferences as >authentically "scientific." > >Dr. James Thomson, the pioneer of embryonic stem cells, said "if human >embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit >uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough." Obama clearly has not. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:291577 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
