Responding to a commenter on stem cells, fruit flies, etc.
Our most faithful and challenging commenter, an old friend who now lives in Arizona and blogs as The Klute, made the following response in the comments section to my recent post on Charles Krauthammer’s column on Obama’s executive order on embryonic stem-cell research.
. . . if we were going solely by Bush’s stem-cell speech/policy as the only scientific policy that Bush and the Bush Admin chimed in on, Krauthammer’s point might have more resonance. Especially since it spilled over into the McCain/Palin ticket (two notable examples being McCain’s “overhead projector” and Bear DNA comments during the debates and Palin’s “Oh, those French fruit flies, dontcha know!” speech).
I responded in the comments section, but I’m re-posting it here along with some thoughts from an earlier comments thread (with some edits for clarity), in case anyone wants to keep the discussion going.
One difficulty in discussing stem-cell research, I find, is that the target keeps moving. It seems it’s impossible to discuss ESCR without zooming into, e.g., fruit-fly research, or whatever the Bush administration supposedly did wrong in other areas.
The fact is, Bush’s ESCR speech was remarkable for its calmness, fairness, and moderation. (I remember it gave me great hope that he would be a good explainer of his administration’s policies; a hope that was dashed a thousand times over in the following years). And the policy itself was a moderate one, acknowledging both the potential and the hazards of ESCR, as well as the public’s disparate feelings about the issue. Research in ESCR has proceeded (a portion funded by the federal government, others by state governments or private industry in the U.S. as well as widely all around the world), as has stem-cell research from adult cells, cord blood, and other non-destructive means. These latter have, from what I have read, proven more promising so far, and without the moral issues of ESCR. Why pro-ESCR people aren’t more excited about these non-controversial alternative methods is very odd to me. I suspect it’s more reflexive anti-prolife sentiment than anything else.
Anyway, Krauthammer’s objections to Obama’s approach and rhetoric seem to me serious enough that they are worth grappling with on their own. Science these days is pretty much defined as “something some scientists want to do.” Krauthammer’s point, in part, is that the question of whether a particular thing that scientists want to do is moral, is inescapably a moral question. Calling something “science” doesn’t change that. (Example: Developing medicines is a moral endeavor. But testing the medicines on animals in a way that causes them unnecessary suffering probably isn’t moral. Saying you oppose unnecessarily cruel animal testing does not make you “anti-science.” )
Further, whether tax dollars ought to be spent to fund a particular thing a scientist wants to do, is inescapably a political question (with politics defined in the broad sense, as the balancing of competing public goods, as opposed to the narrow sense of mere partisanship). So the idea that Bush improperly “dragged” politics and morality into science, or that Obama’s decision is not a political and moral one, just doesn’t hold water. And as Krauthammer points out, on this and other issues, Obama’s self-aggrandizing claims to a greater level of moral seriousness than his predecessor (or, indeed, than each and every one of his predecessors) do not withstand scrutiny.
A footnote: To suggest that it is “anti-science” to question federal funding for fruit fly or bear DNA research is to paint with too broad a brush. (Our commentor The Klute did not explicitly make this charge, but I think it’s a fair inference from his comments, and those made by others.) I have no firm position on whether the fruit fly or bear-DNA research proposals in question were a wise use of taxpayer dollars or not. But where you come down in that issue is not a matter of being “pro” or “anti” science. There are lots of projects that qualify as “science,” and even lots of very very very good and valuable scientific research projects, that may not be a good use of federal dollars, or at least not the best use at a given time, taking into account other competing priorities and the availability of funding from alternative sources. Conservatives may be too quick to say a particular research project is wasteful; Liberals are certainly too quick to brush aside questioning of any federal expenditure as philistine.
A second footnote: In addition to his writings on politics and pop culture, or rather as an artistic outgrowth of them, The Klute is also a well-regarded performance poet, who competes both locally and nationally. You can read about his poetry exploits at his blog, or buy his most recent collection at Amazon. (Note: His poetry is not designed to appeal to a conservative audience!).
“Sarah Palin ridicules federal funding of fruit-fly research, and the other side says she’s so stupid she doesn’t understand the medical usefulness of fruit-fly research. But she didn’t ridicule fruit-fly research. She ridiculed the federal funding of fruit-fly research, which is indeed not authorized by the Constitution — not even close. Opposing a federal takeover of medical practice and research does not mean you reject the usefulness of medicine.” – Vin Suprynowicz, Nov 2, 20088
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/33714474.html
I’ll respond more thoroughly when I’m not at work, but just to quickly dash off a response about the Palin thing…
The reason why I included the Palin/McCain comments is because they were the logical extension of the Bush philosophy towards science. McCain’s Bear DNA joke about “I don’t know whether it was for a criminal matter or a paternity test!” leads people like me to say “Well, maybe you should read up why we’re doing it and then see if you oppose it” rather than just bat it down. The “overhead projector” in Chicago is another one. It’s not an “overhead projector” like can be bought at OfficeMax – it’s a precision scientific instrument.
It’s subtle bigotry – making science seem like “just this crazy collection of test tubes and beakers and oh, you know those eggheads”.
But McCain is Johnny Deficit Hawk, I expect him to be Senator No on earmarks. Palin – who I see as a the physical manifestation of so much of the GOP’s problems – is far, far more disengenuous.
Using Vin Suprynowicz’s comments above, in the speech she was not opposing tax money going to Federal fruit fly research – and thus to back to taxpayers so they could fund research through private means – she was complaining that money was going to fruit fly research and NOT to her pet federal project, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (text of sppech here: http://www.lifenews.com/nat4495b.html).
The difference between fruit fly research and IDEA is that one is preventative, the other reactive. Both are laudable, and I believe both could/should be funded.
But this is Palin’s MO in regards to federal money all the time, just like the Bridge to Nowhere, she was all for the funds and would have (and did – apportioned for something else) take them, but when it became politically expedient to say so, she changes her tune. She’s like Bill Clinton in a dress.
Another recent example of Jindal’s comments about volcano monitoring, it’s a great metaphor – but does he not actually understand that it’s in country’s best interest to monitor Yellowstone for an early warning about a flood basalt eruption or less dramatic, that Anchorage should get a warning when it might be covered in 4 feet of ash? The GOES weather satellites and Hurrican Hunter fleet run off of Federal money – would be Jindal be cool if Palin said “Instead of spending money on tropical storm monitoring, we should be monitoring the storm of deficit raging in Washington”. Of course not.
There are thousand different other projects which would be mentioned and used, but it’s easy, and seems acceptable to bash science amongst the Republican electorate.
If Anchorage needs a volcano warning system, then Alaskans should get on that. I don’t expect them to subsidize me for living in a hurricane zone.
As for funding research on a volcano eruption that could destroy all life as we know it, maybe.
Dammit, I just came back to make a “quick” point, but…
If said volcano outside of Anchorage also lays waste to the strategically important Trans-Alaska Pipeline or Hurricane X wipes out the Gulf of Mexico oil industry?
Every area of country has it’s own unique disaster (except for the jerks in California who think they can have them all), and every American is susceptible to the next firequaketornfloodocane, I think we can chalk all of it to National Defense.
I assume you’re being a little glib, but to quote Rumsfeld, there are unknown unknowns, and as much as appealing as it sounds to leave the defense of the Alaska infrastructure to Sarah Palin, I’d also like to hedge my bets.
Back to what I came here for:
More anti-science from the GOP, this time Michael Steele:
We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I use my fingers as quotation marks, is part of the cooling process. Greenland, which is covered in ice, it was once called Greenland for a reason, right?
As pointed out on Kos via Sam Stein, Greenland’s name was a lie. “[Erik the Red] named the land Greenland, saying that people would be eager to go there if it had a good name.”
This is what we’re talking about when we say the GOP is anti-science. I half expect to hear someone on the right say “Hey, forget what you’ve heard: ammonia and bleach is a powerful cleaning combination!”.
Also, just saw the shoutout, thanks! And I’ll say that while the bulk of my work is not for the conservative, “Hip-Hop Republican” could totally be used by the GOP. In fact, I often worry people think I’m being sincere (which would be HORRIBLE). Heh.
You are really talented on writting article,i will come as soon as you update blog.