O, wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't!
The Tempest is not only one of Shakespeare last plays, but arguably his most profound. No longer content with mere comedy or historical tragedy, he explores the changes rocking the Western world in the 17th century as superstition gave way to reason. By the closing of the fifth act, the sorcerer Prosper laments that "Now my charms are all o'erthrown, And what strength I have's mine own."
And yet, four hundred years later, faith in magic and and distrust of science continue to undermine progress in 21st century America. Much is being made of Barack Obama's decision to repeal George W. Bush's de facto ban on federally funded embryonic stem cell research and the accompanying news that he is signing a memorandum defending science. But I find it a bit depressing that the president of any nation that aspires to greatness would find it necessary to sign a memorandum promising that
people who are appointed to federal positions in science have strong credentials and that the vetting process for evaluating scientific information doesn't lead to any undermining of the scientific opinion. (Washington Post. March 9, 2009)
The news that embryologists can get back to the business of finding cures of debilitating diseases, and that science will no longer be held hostage to fundamentalist fervor should be welcomed. Climatologists, for example, should now be able to advise the White House without fear that the products of their research will be edited by lawyers whose only motive is obsfucation and corruption of the data. This is all well and good.
But I can't help but wonder what Shakespeare would think if we could warn him that his description of the waning influence of superstition and the conflict that results would remain relevant so far into the future.
The quote that opens this post is spoken by Miranda as she marvels at the men from the modern world who have invaded her father's island sanctuary. Seventy-seven years ago, Aldous Huxley turned the opening words on their head in his novel describing what he considered to be the dangers of genetic engineering, Brave New World. Here we are in 2009, finally putting Huxley's fear-driven visions behind us.
In those closing moments of the Tempest, Prospero releases his captive sprite, Ariel, from her servitude, with the line: "To the elements Be free, and fare thou well." We can only hope that she is gone for good.
- Log in to post comments
James - Since you are a journalist, I assume you have at least some respect for accuracy in reportage. Hence, I suspect you know better than to call the Bush administration's 2001 policy a "de facto ban" in ESCR. That policy, in fact, provided for the first federal funding of ESCR, which had previously been "off limits" for federal funding.
yorumsuz
Climatologists, for example, should now be able to advise the White House without fear that the products of their research will not be edited by lawyers whose only motive is obsfucation and corruption of the data.
I think you mean:
Climatologists, for example, should now be able to advise the White House without fear that the products of their research WILL BE edited by lawyers whose only motive is obsfucation and corruption of the data.
A little proofing goes a long way.
EB
Re bob koepp
Mr. koepps' statement is true but irrelevant. The order given by former President Bush restricted federal funding to existing cell lines and forbade such funding on any cell lines produced after the date of the order. President Bush lied to the American people, claiming that some 60 cell lines were then in existence. As Chris Mooney has documented in his book, "The Republican War on Science," and in numerous articles, only some 20 of those lines were actually useful as the rest were contaminated. President Obamas' order now allows extraction of stem cells from embryos available after the date of the Bush order. The new order does restrict the extraction of stem cells to excess embryos in fertility clinics that would be discarded in any event. The issue of creating embryos for stem cell extraction has been postponed, pending administration appraisal of NIH developing guidelines. The question of creation of embryos by cloning has, for now, been left off the table.
SLC - It wasn't my intention to defend the Bush Administration's policy. But I do object to shading the truth to make a political point.
Bob: I think it fair to call it a "de facto" ban, in the way most people use the term: not official, but amounting to as much. Google the topic and you'll see that most of the major news outlets agree.
The fact remains that most embryonic stem cell research projects in the U.S. were prohibited under the Bush order, because most such research involves at least some federal funding.
I resent the allegation that I "shade" the truth to make a point.
The fact that "most major news outlets" use misleading language doesn't make it any less misleading. Last time I checked, journalistic ethics didn't endorse the "everybody else is doing it" defense.
yorumsuz
Bob, I think you are missing the point of the post. No matter the details of the Bush policy on ESCR the end result, and I think the intended result, was to stifle research in this area because of what amounts to superstition. The point of what James was saying is we are 300 years past when Shakespeare saw what he thought was an end to humanityâs long toil under such beliefs. We should by now be making decisions about life and science and research not based on ancient books but by a cool assessment of the facts as we know them.
Look back at David Brin's defense of the civil service for a reminder of how important this is.
To quote a bit from his blog "Contrary Brin" (you know how to find this stuff):
"... For better or worse, we citizens own and rely upon these agencies, to defend us, to maintain fair and open markets, to encourage startups and discourage monopoly, to catch criminality even in high places, to give truthful intelligence, to peer ahead for threats and opportunities in complex times. We pay their salaries and half a million or so civil servants used to work hard to give us value back. Most would do so, again, if they were allowed.
However one feels about whether government should perform this or that function - until the laws are changed, should it not perform those functions well? The answer, given by the Republican political operative caste, has been in no uncertain terms, âno.â
(Why have the professionals been deliberately stymied? Thatâs another question. Perhaps out of dogmatic belief that government should fail. Or because that failure made it easier to steal. There are even darker scenarios. Anyway, government has grown, vastly, under the GOP. And though they complain, Republicans have a lousy record at deregulation. Of ten major deregulations, they crafted just three, that later proved to be vehicles for graft.) ..."
---end quote---
I don't know what ad hominem attacks on people who believe in God have to do with this issue. You can be an atheist and believe this to be immoral. It just depends on what you consider the beginning of a life. You don't need to believe in God to believe it starts at conception. A conceived embryo now has all of the genetic material it needs to eventually develop, its development is activated, and if we do not intervene (and it does not naturally die), it will eventually be an adult human (notice that definition had nothing to do with a soul). And if you believe that life starts at conception (which, again, is not contingent on belief in God, although I fear that an atheist only considers himself a "good" atheist if he takes a point of view that is contradictory to the theistic among us), then you should object to embryonic stem cell research because it is trading one person's life for another person's cure.
Yes, blockage of ESC research is because of some people's morals influencing government. But I have two questions:
1.) Isn't that the point of America? For the people, BY the people? If the concensus of THE PEOPLE is to not allow ESC research, then that is what the law should be. It should not come down to the view of scientists because whether you deny it or not...
2.) Allowing ESC research is just acceptance of another set of values (that an embryo is not a human, but that rather occurs at some vague, arbitrary moment in the future, like brain waves or "viability").
Now, if the concensus is to allow ESC research and abortions, then that is what the law should be. But government funding of ESC research is basically forcing me to pay for something I am deeply morally against. And if I don't pay, I go to jail or get fined even more money.