Politicizing science

[6thGen]

I don?t believe it has been really discussed to a great extent here other than in a few signatures, or at least I?ve missed it if it has. Last week Obama issued an executive order expanding federal funding for stem cells produced by destroying human embryos. He characterized those that disagree with him on the issue as ?ideologues? and ?politicizing science?. He did not legalize embryonic stem cell research. He did not allow for the first of federal funding for stem cell research. He simply expanded federal funding of it, and in the process demonized those that disagree with him and dismissed any argument against his position.

Obama emphasized the importance of making ?scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.? First, there is no such thing as apolitical science. If there was, we wouldn?t be discussing the ethics of human cloning. Everything that happens within the community impacts the community and as such is intrinsically political. Second, he failed to specify what counts as a purely ?scientific decision?. What issues can we possibly decide on scientific grounds alone ? that is, without also inquiring after the kinds of important ethical, political, and economic concerns that President Obama denigrates as mere ?ideology??

Obama?s "ideology-free" position on stem cells is itself an ideological position. To quote a NR author, often pragmatism is really a Trojan Horse for the preferred ideological positions of people who don't want to have ideological arguments. Obama shut down principled disagreement by saying that all reasonable people already agree with him and therefore anyone who disagrees is ipso facto unreasonable. That displays intellectually dishonesty and moral arrogance, and his comment that he will "restore science to its rightful place" is also dishonest, as embryonic stem cell research is and has been legal, and there was federal funding in place for existing lines.

The government should not, and does not, under Bush's program, Obama's, or even Clinton's, decide what is researched and what is not. It determines what portion of the money we plunder from the productive class funds someone else's research. However, given that there is a moral/ethical component to the government?s position on this (that would probably be even greater if there were a semblance of balance in the coverage on this), it is not an unreasonable position to say that the government should stick to funding the one without the moral controversy and leave the other one to the private sector.

CSCODL. Civilized society consists of drawing lines, and I?m not making a slippery slope argument here. This isn?t about the merits of embryonic stem cell research, something so promising that the federal government and the state of California are the only ones funding it despite its huge potential upside. I?m not advocating the criminalization of embryonic stem cell research. I just believe that there is place for reasonable people to disagree on ethical grounds, without being labeled as anti-science, flat earth ideologues. Science would certainly be advanced if we cloned the best and brightest individuals, but ideologically most believe that would create an ethical dilemma, and Obama noted that himself.

As Dr. James Thomson, the discoverer of embryonic stem cells, noted "if human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough."

 

[poppy]

After the last eight years now you are worried about politicizing science? I believe President Obama wants scientific research to proceed without interference. You may believe you are reading something in the tea leaves but most Americans are rejoicing.


This is from The Union of Concerned Scientists

December 11, 2006
10,600 Scientists Condemn Political Interference in Science

New Guide Documents Ongoing Federal Abuse of Science; 110th Congress Must Act
SAN FRANCISCO?A statement by Nobel laureates and other leading scientists calling for the restoration of scientific integrity to federal policy making has now been signed by 10,600 scientists from all 50 states, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) announced today at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union. The announcement came as the scientists group released an "A to Z" guide that documents dozens of recent allegations involving censorship and political interference in federal science.
"From airborne bacteria to Ground Zero, science continues to be misrepresented for political gain," said Dr. Francesca Grifo, senior scientist and director of UCS's Scientific Integrity Program. "The new Congress should enact meaningful reforms so decisions within federal scientific agencies and advisory committees are based on objective and unbiased science."
The integrity of science statement has grown steadily since it was first released in February 2004. Signatories now include 52 Nobel Laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and almost 200 members of the National Academies of Science. Meanwhile, the new UCS compendium details censorship and political interference in federal science on issues as diverse as air quality, childhood lead poisoning, and prescription drug safety. For example, in late October UCS released documents tying high-level political appointees at the Department of Interior to the manipulation and distortion of numerous scientific documents to prevent the protection of six different species under the Endangered Species Act.
"The scientist statement makes clear that while science is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should be objective and impartial," said Dr. Grifo. "Sustained protest from scientists, individual Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and the nation's leading editorial pages has not been enough to make the abuse of science stop."

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading U.S. science-based nonprofit organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in 1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and also has offices in Berkeley, Chicago and Washington, D.C.

 

[scooterbug44]

Obama didn't start the politicizing of the issue - that would be his predecessor who banned federal funding of important research to appease a religious group.

All Obama did was get rid of the ban.

 

[6thGen]

After the last eight years now you are worried about politicizing science? I believe President Obama wants scientific research to proceed without interference.

What interference was there 3 months ago?

 

[6thGen]

Obama didn't start the politicizing of the issue - that would be his predecessor who banned federal funding of important research to appease a religious group.

All Obama did was get rid of the ban.

Then why didn't he just sign the order and move on? Why silence and demonize the opposition? Why not acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree on the ethics, but he is in favor of increasing federal funding? One of his critics wrote that "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."

On a somewhat related note, someone please remind him that he's not running again for another 3 and a half years.

 

[LuciferSam]

I don’t believe it has been really discussed to a great extent here other than in a few signatures, or at least I’ve missed it if it has. Last week Obama issued an executive order expanding federal funding for stem cells produced by destroying human embryos. He characterized those that disagree with him on the issue as “ideologues” and “politicizing science”. He did not legalize embryonic stem cell research. He did not allow for the first of federal funding for stem cell research. He simply expanded federal funding of it, and in the process demonized those that disagree with him and dismissed any argument against his position.

Obama emphasized the importance of making “scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.” First, there is no such thing as apolitical science. If there was, we wouldn’t be discussing the ethics of human cloning. Everything that happens within the community impacts the community and as such is intrinsically political. Second, he failed to specify what counts as a purely “scientific decision”. What issues can we possibly decide on scientific grounds alone — that is, without also inquiring after the kinds of important ethical, political, and economic concerns that President Obama denigrates as mere “ideology”?

Obama’s "ideology-free" position on stem cells is itself an ideological position. To quote a NR author, often pragmatism is really a Trojan Horse for the preferred ideological positions of people who don't want to have ideological arguments. Obama shut down principled disagreement by saying that all reasonable people already agree with him and therefore anyone who disagrees is ipso facto unreasonable. That displays intellectually dishonesty and moral arrogance, and his comment that he will "restore science to its rightful place" is also dishonest, as embryonic stem cell research is and has been legal, and there was federal funding in place for existing lines.

The government should not, and does not, under Bush's program, Obama's, or even Clinton's, decide what is researched and what is not. It determines what portion of the money we plunder from the productive class funds someone else's research. However, given that there is a moral/ethical component to the government’s position on this (that would probably be even greater if there were a semblance of balance in the coverage on this), it is not an unreasonable position to say that the government should stick to funding the one without the moral controversy and leave the other one to the private sector.

CSCODL. Civilized society consists of drawing lines, and I’m not making a slippery slope argument here. This isn’t about the merits of embryonic stem cell research, something so promising that the federal government and the state of California are the only ones funding it despite its huge potential upside. I’m not advocating the criminalization of embryonic stem cell research. I just believe that there is place for reasonable people to disagree on ethical grounds, without being labeled as anti-science, flat earth ideologues. Science would certainly be advanced if we cloned the best and brightest individuals, but ideologically most believe that would create an ethical dilemma, and Obama noted that himself.

As Dr. James Thomson, the discoverer of embryonic stem cells, noted "if human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough."

Let me preface by saying that ethical considerations are absolutely necessary when dealing with anything , science included. Now let me say that science is 100% apolitical and has absolutely nothing to do with ethics. It deals strictly with trying to gain an understanding of objective reality. The ethics and politics are crucial for proper scientific application but they have absolutely nothing to do with science itself. Ideology does not change the scientific fact that we can play around with atoms to the point that we can destroy our world with nukes. That's what science is about; facts, not opinions. That being said, I cannot imagine why there is any moral controversy with destroying a congregate of cells with no brain or nervous system. There is absolutely no scientific basis for the soul that arises at conception, and I find it incredible that there exists an idelogical basis for such among many people.

 

[scooterbug44]

Then why didn't he just sign the order and move on? Why silence and demonize the opposition? Why not acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree on the ethics, but he is in favor of increasing federal funding?

I didn't find his comments off-base and I doubt many scientists did either after having religious groups so heavily influencing medical and science issues.

 

[LuciferSam]

It's going to be refreshing for the next four years to hear Obama use words like pluripotent that Bush wouldn't be able to pronounce.

 

[6thGen]

Let me preface by saying that ethical considerations absolutely necessary when dealing with anything science included. Now let me say that science is 100% apolitical and has absolutely nothing to do with ethics. It deals strictly with trying to gain an understanding of objective reality. The ethics and politics are crucial for proper scientific application but they have absolutely nothing to do with science itself. Ideology does not change the scientific fact that we can play around with atoms to the point that we can destroy our world with nukes. That's what science is about; facts, not opinions. That being said, I cannot imagine why there is any moral controversy with destroying a congregate of cells with no brain or nervous system. There is absolutely no scientific basis for the soul that arises at conception, and I find it incredible that there exists an idelogical basis for such among many people.

Very well though out response. I guess I should have said that science is not political, but the application thereof is absolutely political. As for the moral controversy, the controversy arises from the practice of creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it. There is no scientific evidence for a soul at conception, or 30 years after conception, and from past discussions I did not think you believed in a soul period.

Human embryos are at the outermost edge of human life, but without the aforementioned life they are virtually worthless to science. The point I was trying to get across is that you cannot separate politics from the application of science, and healthy debate on the merits is a positive. That wasn't the message sent out last week.

 

[6thGen]

I didn't find his comments off-base and I doubt many scientists did either after having religious groups so heavily influencing medical and science issues.

It's not the scientists I'm worried about.