Will Saletan has a good article over at Slate debunking some of the myths and half-truths that are being peddled to drum up support for the Democrats’ position on stem-cell research. To wit:
The stem-cell movement has become political. “Three years ago, the president enacted a far-reaching ban on stem-cell research,” Kerry asserted in his radio address. Repeating a pledge made by Hillary Clinton at the Democratic convention, Kerry promised twice that he would “lift the ban on stem-cell research.” But no such ban exists. Embryonic stem-cell research is unrestricted in the private sector. State and local governments can fund it as they wish. The federal government spent nearly $200 million on adult stem-cell research last year and nearly $25 million on research involving the roughly 20 approved embryonic lines. As today’s Washington Post observes, what Bush actually did was “to allow, for the first time, the use of federal funds” for embryonic stem-cell research.
Why does Kerry call it a “ban on stem-cell research” instead of a ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell lines derived after Aug. 9, 2001? Because the shorter phrase, while scientifically inaccurate in four egregious ways, is more politically effective.
Moreover, polls have found that support for stem cell research jumps when respondents are asked if they would support it to find cures for diseases like Alzheimers. Trouble is, there’s scant evidence that stem cell research holds much promise for curing Alzheimers:
The trouble is, the Alzheimer’s hype isn’t true. On June 10, the Post’s Rick Weiss reported that “given the lack of any serious suggestion that stem cells themselves have practical potential to treat Alzheimer’s, the Reagan-inspired tidal wave of enthusiasm [for stem cell research] stands as an example of how easily a modest line of scientific inquiry can grow in the public mind to mythological proportions. It is a distortion that some admit is not being aggressively corrected by scientists.” Why don’t scientists dispel the myth? “People need a fairy tale,” NIH researcher Ronald McKay told Weiss. “Maybe that’s unfair, but they need a story line that’s relatively simple to understand.”
Saletan makes the same point I made the other day, namely that science by itself doesn’t provide us with moral guidelines:
Kerry’s appeals to faith and prayer don’t end there. He asks voters to believe, on the same spiritual basis, that science will create ethical boundaries for itself. “We must look to the future not with fear but with the hope and the faith that advances in medicine will advance our best values,” he pleaded in a recent speech promoting stem-cell research. “I have full faith that our scientists will go forward with a moral compass,” he added. All we must do, he advised, is “pursue the limitless potential of science—and trust that we can use it wisely.”
I want to have faith, John. I want to hope and dream. I want to believe in the magic and the miracles and the power of prayer. But if you want to preserve trust in science, stick to the evidence.
(link via Amy Welborn)
A Thinking Reed 
Leave a comment