Stem cells and the Kulturkampf see-saw

Here's a place for those of you who are so inclined to comment on the Obama administration's new policy on stem cells. That is to say, the latest tilt in the Kulturkampf see-saw. Republicans get in charge, it tilts one way. Democrats get in charge, it tilts the other. And so it continues, even in the "post-partisan" era.

I don't know what to say about it myself because ... I don't know; I guess I haven't thought about it enough or something. The partisans seem REALLY sure of their sides, and personally, I don't know how they can be. But maybe it's something missing in me.

I suppose I was relatively comfortable with the Bush position because, near as I could tell, it was a compromise. But then, if I'm reading correctly, the Obama position is ALSO to some extent a compromise, because some restrictions will remain. And yet it is touted as a total reversal, which perhaps it is. I find it confusing.

It's not something we have a position on as an editorial board, because on these culture war things we are often genuinely conflicted. Many editorial boards are quick to sound off on these things because they are more ideologically homogeneous than we are. For us, it's not so simple, and we generally prefer to use up our political capital with each other struggling over the very difficult issues facing South Carolina, which are tough enough.

Anyway, if you read the editorials of most newspapers on the subject, you might think that there is no controversy at all, that the Obama position is of course the right and true one, and you need to be awfully backward to think otherwise -- nothing short of a triumph of science over the forces of darkness. Some examples:

• The New York Times: "We welcome President Obama’s decision to lift the Bush administration’s restrictions on federal financing for embryonic stem cell research. His move ends a long, bleak period in which the moral objections of religious conservatives were allowed to constrain the progress of a medically important science."
• The Boston Globe: "We applaud President Obama's executive order reversing the ban on federal stem-cell research, and the return of science unhobbled by political or religious considerations." (Actually, that quote is not from the editorial itself, but from the blurb summarizing it online.)
• The Philadelphia Inquirer: "Americans are understandably divided over President Obama's decision to lift restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem-cell research. But he took the course that promises the greater medical benefit. In reversing a funding ban imposed by President Bush, Obama yesterday also took a welcome step toward restoring the rightful place of scientific research in guiding public policy."
• St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Federal funding is no guarantee that embryonic stem cell research will provide hoped-for cures to dreaded diseases like diabetes, let alone guarantee that any cures might come soon. But the executive order that Mr. Obama signed on Monday will clear away bureaucratic and procedural hurdles that have hampered that research. It provides an important new source of funding. Perhaps most important, it signals a new commitment to science ideals, free inquiry and open debate in American public policy."

The relatively "conservative" Chicago Tribune was more muted in its praise and even-handed in its presentation, but nevertheless expressed approval for the Obama move, saying the Bush policy had been too restrictive:

Sensible barriers to federal funding for cloning and the creation of embryos for research purposes remain in place. On Monday, Obama asked lawmakers to provide the support that will put the country at the forefront of vital stem cell research. It's now up to Congress to get behind the scientists. All Obama did was get out of their way.

And The Wall Street Journal? No editorial. But they did run an op-ed piece criticizing the new policy, headlined, "The President Politicizes Stem-Cell Research," with the subhead, "Taxpayers have a right to be left out of it."

That last point is one that one doesn't see emphasized enough, which is that this is not about whether research is allowed, but whether we the taxpayers will pay for it. And that's a legitimate conversation to have.

Another point that I would appreciate being updated on, and that seems to get ignored in the shouting matches, is the idea that the science has made the political argument moot, in terms of moving beyond the need for embryonic cells. That was the point made in this Krauthammer column a while back:

    A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan's Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.
    Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Was that wishful thinking on Krauthammer's part? Did that turn out to be a dead-end? Maybe some of you who follow the issue more closely than I do can point to something I should read to that effect.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see what Krauthammer says about it, if he addresses it. He has an interesting perspective for someone wearing the "conservative" stamp. First, to my knowledge he's not anti-abortion. Also, he is a physician by training, and he served on the Bush administration's Council on Bioethics, which HE maintains (and I'm sure some of you will disagree, although I just don't know) was...

... one of the most ideologically balanced bioethics commissions in the history of this country. It consisted of scientists, ethicists, theologians, philosophers, physicians -- and others (James Q. Wilson, Francis Fukuyama and me among them) of a secular bent not committed to one school or the other.

Anyway, that ought to be enough fodder to get y'all started, if you want to discuss this.

Comments

[Lee Muller]

This is not about furthering research, because so many experts say it is made irrelevant and outdated by advances in adult stem cell cultures.

This is an old issue ginned up as a justification for abortion. Radicals in the Democratic Party who want no restrictions on abortion and the killing of the terminally ill have this as one of the building blocks of their agenda.

[Greg Flowers]

I have recently read in the Economist that the science exists to use cells from unfertilized eggs in exactly the same way as fertilized eggs are now being used. So, why is there even a question?

[Greg Flowers]

Maybe I just don't understand this sufficiently (and that is a distinct possibility) but the matter seems pretty straightforward to me: killing a fertilized egg is no different form abortion which is no different from infanticide which is no different from murder. I am not a religious person but do feel that the protection of human life is the most important thing we do. There are exceptions but I will leave those for another. On this I agree with Nat Hentoff, a very bright man with whom I agree with on almost nothing (except this).

[Brad Warthen]

I was remembering right about Krauthammer and abortion, by the way. Here's where he referred to his position on that awhile back:
I hope for the day when Roe is overturned, not because I want to see abortion criminalized -- I once voted in a Maryland referendum to keep abortion legal if Roe is ever repealed -- but to sweep away this ridiculous muddle.

[David]

As I understand what the President has done and said, he has lifted the ban on government funded embryonic stem cell research AND has stated his unequivocal position AGAINST using embryos for human cloning.

Let's see...

He fully supports the destruction of human embryos so that their components can be used for questionable research which may or may not be beneficial to humans, and...

He's dead set against the use of embryos to make more human beings.

Wow.

What we have here is a walking, talking, one man disaster. He is an absolutely empty suit, and the utter incoherence of his policies is dazzlingly apparent.

David

[David]

As I understand what the President has done and said, he has lifted the ban on government funded embryonic stem cell research AND has stated his unequivocal position AGAINST using embryos for human cloning.

Let's see...

He fully supports the destruction of human embryos so that their components can be used for questionable research which may or may not be beneficial to humans, and...

He's dead set against the use of embryos to make more human beings.

Wow.

What we have here is a walking, talking, one man disaster. He is an absolutely empty suit, and the utter incoherence of his policies is dazzlingly apparent.

David

[Randy E]

Greg, the republicans, including W, contradict themselves.

They ignore the in vitro process that creates this human life. The result is that embryos that are subsequently unused are discarded as medical waste. If human life is to be valued, where is the outrage about life disparaged and destroyed in such a way?

Give the Catholic church due regard for the integrity in this issue by taking a stand against this medical waste and stem cell research destroying embryos for research.

[David]

I apologize for the double post. My RAM got into a fight with my Mother Board and I couldn't separate 'em.

Dave

[bill]

Unless you're at a sperm bank,masturbation is murder.

[Greg Flowers]

That is simply untrue as the taking of life cannot precede the formation of life i.e. fertilization.

[bill]

fertilization is not formation,and on and on and...

[wsobchak]

News Flash:

Abortion is legal in this country.

This country is secular by design, and secular by law.

[Greg Flowers]

As I say I am not religious and yet oppose abortion. The fact that something is legal does not make it right. This country being secular by design is something many historians will argue with you about. what the framers opposed was a single established religion.

[Lee Muller]

There was no ban on using human embryos for stem cell research. If a woman or couple agreed to sell their unused fertilized eggs, they could do so.

The ban was only on using federal taxpayer money to fund this controversial and unnecessary procedure.

President Obama did not say he opposes human cloning. He said he will appoint a panel to study it for 120 days and make recommendations.

You Obama supporters need to pay more attention to his weasel words.

[penultimo mcfarland]

Funny that Brad finds stem cells worthy of discussion, but Obama's snub of our strongest ally in all the world last week didn't rate a mention, what with Brad being a military brat and all.

Why does the media bend over backward to protect a president that would thumb his nose at our friends and embrace our enemies?

[martin]

Well, Brad, I just read about the lay-offs and I'm real sorry.

[Greg Flowers]

This is off topic but let's all to take a moment to reflect on all of those who have recently lost their jobs but particularly the 38 State employees, including Brad who were let go today. I wish all of these people the very best in difficult times and fervently hope that we soon see the end of the tunnel.

[Pilgrim]

It is an ethical nightmare MOST worthy of discussion -- but Brad is straddling the fence.

How can you know so clearly that abortion is murder, but not have an opinion on embryonic farming? Embryonic merchandising?

[some guy]

Brad -- I'm sorry to hear about the situation at the State. You've done a great job staying on top of the education issues in the state -- and Mark Sanford's "choice" plans. I hope you'll stay part of that discussion.

[Pilgrim]

I just read about the layoffs. Sorry for your loss.

Via Con Dios, Brad.

[Bart]

Brad,

I have been there and I know how it feels. You have my families best wishes and prayers.

You have made a difference and I for one sincerely appreciate your contributions.

I know you will land on your feet. Somehow, we always do.

[Bill C.]

I hear the Free Times might be looking for a liberal blogger.

[Claudia]

Brad,

You and your family are in my thoughts and those of my collegues. You will be missed.

Here's a wish that you'll wind up in a better situation after all is said and done... life works out that way sometimes. You're very good at what you do... you'll survive and thrive.

[KP]

What a nightmare. I am appalled. And very sad. I know you'll be fine but it's a bad day for South Carolina.

[Weldon "p.m." VII]

Tough luck, Brad.

Here's hoping brighter days lie ahead.

I heave enjoyed the blog.