Stem Cells: It's All About Timing

As Peter Singer pointed out in The President of Good and Evil, this stance is hard to reconcile with the death penalty too...

I am getting so impossibly tired of the "My taxes shouldn't have to fund something I don't like," line.

I don't care what it's applied to, it's stupid, precisely because it can be applied to anything.

John - Would you think it was stupid if it was properly qualified to reflect the traditional liberal principle of freedom of conscience? For example, what if it was phrased as, "General tax revenues should not be used to directly support activities that a substantial minority of taxpayers sincerely believe to be morally prohibited, unless the activity in question is necessary to the maintenance of a well-ordered society."

I suppose I should note that while I firmly believe that human embryonic stem cell research _should_ be vigorously pursued, and am happy to support it myself, I also consider myself a supporter of freedom of conscience.

Of interest here is the counter-offer the administration has enacted focusing on recent scientific advances that have the potential to sidestep ethical controversies involving embryonic stem cell work. The most alarming part of the executive order is:

Section 1 (b) iv: Within 90 days of this order, the Secretary renames the "Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry" the "Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Registry."

Section 1 (b) v: The Secretary must add to the registry new human pluripotent stem cell lines that clearly meet the standard set forth in subsection (a) of this section. [Cells must be derived without creating a human embryo for research purposes or destroying, discarding, or subjecting to harm a human embryo or fetus.]

I am not sure if I like this or not. I sortof like the idea of changing the terminology away from embryonic, but it's point v that pulls me in the other direction. When I read that, I thought: "Whoa! Let's just water down an already dilute stock of limited stem cell lines with some less potent, uncharacterized lines. The last time I checked, there aren't any human non embryonic pluripotent stem cell lines. Let me know in 5 years if there are any yet!

I support vigorous research into human adult and embryonic stem cell research. If this is a topic that interests you more, come on over to my blog.

I've always felt a far better way to honor the sanctity of life is to throw unwanted embryos in the trash to make space in the freezer. Another great thing to do is start wars and/or not make every effort to stop an imminent war.

I'll second marceipooh's comment that - it's not OK to destroy human embryos to create potentially life-saving cells, but it is OK to destroy human embryos because we don't feel like paying to store them anymore so we'll just throw them out instead.

This level of hypocrisy is simply painful.

Bob Koepp:

Pretty much, yes. I don't know of a better way to determine what the right level of "large minority" is, the right level of sincerity, or the necessary level well-ordered society is, except through the defined consensual workings of the government...

...Which is what that line of argument tries to sidestep. It's a weaselly way of trying to get back to Calhoun's concept of government by unanimity alone, except indirectly through finance.

The argument can be applied to everything even remotely controversial: inheritance taxes, military spending, agricultural subsidies, trade deals, pollution regimes, education reform, immigration policy, whatever. It's silly. Yes, the President has the Constitutional authority to do these things based on a silly and short-sighted philosophical basis, but that doesn't mean he ought to.

John Novak - OK, you're admirably clear about your belief that freedom of conscience, as understood by traditional liberals, is silly.

Given how it is being used and abused in practice, I stand my ground.

The alternative would be special pleading (only my conscience is worthy of generating the opt-out) or watching the systemic ratchetting up of that tactic and see more and more government initiatives shut down because minority groups don't want them funded. (And this is coming from someone who invariably prefers to see less government...!)

I understand and greatly sympathize with the desire; I also think it leads to poor policy in the long run. Take comfort in the fact that, if your dollars support something you don't like, other people are in the same boat with respect to policies you favor, and consider working to change the majority consensus.

In totally unrelated news, we continue to rain fiery death upon Middle Easterners who have displeased us.

Really? Exactly where are we doing this?

I may not support the war in Iraq, but idiodic statements like this make me want to say, "get off my side you hyper-exaggerating moron!" It is possible to argue against the war without being a dishonest tool. For the most part, they are reigning fiery death upon each other. We may have removed the government that had been preventing this in the past, we're bungling up the effort of trying to stop it and seem to be making things worse. But except for the small part of our bungling does occasionally reign fiery death upon middle easterners, We're not engaged in some continued indescriminent bombing campaing here. To imply that we're executing a concerted effort to kill middle easterners becasue they "displease" us is more than a wee bit dishonest.

The phrase "rain fiery death upon Middle Easterners who have displeased us" is lifted from some long-ago fake news story, in which stem cell research was deemed "playing God" by an imaginary Bush spokesman. I couldn't Google up the original, though I found several places where I used it in the past.

I won't attempt to claim that it's accurate in every detail-- mostly, I just like the image-- but we are unquestionably spending billions of dollars on an unpopular war, and whether we're "raining" death on them, or being more selective in our death-dealing, we are unquestionably destroying human lives in the process. I think there's a legitimate contrast to be drawn between the administration's reluctance to fund stem cell research and their eagerness to fund the war in Iraq.

The phrase "rain fiery death upon Middle Easterners who have displeased us" is lifted from some long-ago fake news story . . .

Oh, well in that case, I'll jump off my high horse and apologize for not catching the reference. It doesn't look like theres much difference in our actual views.

Both the ban on embryonic stem cell research and the wars in the Middle East can both be seen as an attempt to protect life; the lives of unborn humans and the lives of adult Americans. Adult stem cell research is being funded and is showing great promise. Embryonic stem cell research is being carried out with private funds and has so far been fruitless.

I am not qualified to assess whether wars in the Middle East are protecting American life. I do know a little bit about stem cell policy though.

Please don't conflate the 50 or so adult stem cell therapies (different types of bone marrow transplants) with the potential that embryonic stem cell research has. Keep in mind that adult stem cells have been studied (and heavily funded) for more than 40 years. Human embryonic stem cells have been studied for less than 10. I do not understand what you mean by fruitless. Embryonic stem cells have been differentiated into most types of cells in the body. Adult stem cells are still very limited in which cells they can be turned into. If by 'great promise' you are referring to the recent reports of skin cell reprogramming or amniotic stem cells, I invite you to carefully examine what those papers (not the press's and the pols' interpretations) actually claimed. My summaries of these two issues are here and here. Finally, you should know that embryonic stem cell research is being funded with plenty of public money. The states of California, Massachusetts, New York and Missouri, among others, join the NIH in sponsoring research with human embryonic stem cell lines.

Thanks for the links Thomas. I have added your blog to my favorites. I'll try not to confuse success with potential for success.