Obama's Stem Cell Temptations

Mathew Schmaltz

By the anti-science bias of your essay, I would say that you do not understand how science works. More specifically, I do not think that you understand embryonic stem cell research, very well.

Beyond that, what can I criticize? Why should all of society be foreced to wait while ignorant people take their time learning the particulars of a controversy, or worse, willfully choose to remain ignorant, forever?

Go ahead and live in your dark corner, while the rest of the world passes you by.

"But in so marginalizing religiously informed critiques of public policy, Obama is unintentionally spinning a kind of religious narrative of his own that has equally sectarian implications."

I'd love to say what you're spinning in your blog post, but my response would be instantly censored.

The truth is that religiously informed critiques of public policy have dominated discourse for the last decade if not decades, to the nation's great detriment. We desperately need to marginalize these viewpoints, because they bring nothing of value to the debate.

White House representatives have characterized the executive order as a "return to scientific integrity in government." Professor Schmalz's opinion is that this characterization implies that religiously informed ideology has been used to restrict scientific inquiry for political ends.

I don't think that is the case at all. The faith-based community tries to restrict scientific inquiry because those inquiries run contrary to their doctrines, and not to achieve political gain. Similarly, Bush listened to (and acted on) faith-based critiques because he shared that faith.

But who cares?!? In either case, it is terrifying that myths and fairy tales were permitted to govern public policy.

There is no integrity in any analytical framework that cannot withstand serious scrutiny. When stories about jesus, allah, vishnu or Popeye - all fictions, according to any rational and reasonable scholar - are imported into a discussion, they undermine the integrity of that discussion.

Simply put, parties can agree that either (i) the discussion will be restricted to the rational, where evidence, logic, and critical examination are employed, or (ii) opinions, beliefs and unprovable theories will be permitted. When it comes to public policy, we should select (i) every time.

IF THERE WAS A FIRE AND YOU COULD ONLY SAVE ONE, A YOUNG CHILD OR A EMBRYONIC STEM CELL?

Professor Schmalz,
I am taken aback by the arrogance of your dismissive analysis of President Obama's motivations for allowing the possiblity of federal funding for emryonic stem cell research. You describe him as succimbing to temptations, which implies he has sinned by signing the order. Firstly, saying that not doing stem cell research makes the U.S. less competitive in that regard is simply a statement of fact, not an ideological position. Secondly, you suggest he is small-minded to be interested in relieving suffering, since a big-picture thinker would understand suffering in the big picture of human existence. While I agree that the Church does well to remind us of the meaning and dignity of suffering, such over-intellecutualized conclusions have led the Church to positions that have caused untold suffering. Think AIDS/condoms and contraception. And last, you accuse him of ignoring his conscience to carefully deliberate about the continuum of life (Another version of the first temptation.)

He quite likely has already. I don't know his analysis, but when I look at human life from a natural law perspective, I see calling conception as the birth of the soul as a highly arbitrary--and thus religious-- decision. One of the zillion issues related to the octuplet birth in January is the beginning of the "souls" of the babies. Six embryos were implanted, eight babies were born.

It is such a scandal that the Catholic Church has put so much effort in regard to embryos. one would think a 2000 year old institution would be more of a big picture actor.

Good for Obama! It is about time that decisions started being made based on measurable, testable evidence and fact rather than opinions informed by silly myths...

It is funny to read these oh-so-serious religious 'scholars' trying to disguise their personal opinions as 'reasoned analysis'. Any commentary on the stem cell issue that is based on scripture or religious thought has no business in a scientific discussion or in public policy decisions.

If you want to subjugate yourself to the jesus myth, then go for it... but stay the hell out of discussions intended for grown ups and the non-delusional.

I really do not want to take your comments out of context too much and do not think that I have, but I am troubled by some implications.

“no framework for bringing meaning to suffering” – Meaning? Not an easy concept when it is your or your loved one’s suffering.

“alleviate the symptoms of human suffering without understanding their broader existential context” - Suffering is existential, so let’s skip the research and cures?

“draw attention away from the need for human solidarity in the face of suffering” – You want us to continue having suffering so we can increase our human solidarity? No thanks.

“well meaning efforts to alleviate the immediate effects of human frailty and finitude can raise other policy issues and moral quandaries” - Keep the suffering, reaffirm the frailty and finitude in order to avoid policy and moral quandaries? No, we have to address all moral issues.

All life is sacred. Who gave you the right to decide unborn life is more sacred than born life?

Human suffering is not for religious ideologues to use to justify *causing* suffering in others... in order to preserve all the leftover and least-viable fertilized eggs from not dying a 'natural' death of freezer burn as 'potential human life.'

While there's certainly an element of pill-popping denial of death, brain-death, and suffering among what's alternately called 'our decadentsecular culture' or our 'Righteously non-communist faithful culture,' none of this justifies using that human suffering for ideological points, nor the profit of companies that make more off treatments than cures or preventions.

Especially when the facts of the matter don't match up with the policies that these ostensibly-religious demands end up resulting in.

Simple fact of the matter is that embryonic stem cell research wouldn't kill a single 'potential human life' that wasn't slated to become medical waste.

why is resisting religion a religious exercise?
The fundamentalist influence over government policy reached its zenith during the Bush administration, let us hope (and pray, those of you who pray) we don't have to deal with these barbarians dictating public policy again.

More theologically based gobbledygook.

Professor Schmalz' argument that competitiveness is itself "an ideological construct that legitimates the exercise of power" is, of course, correct. Competition is also the motivating force behind the economic system that has enabled people to raise their standard of living. In this respect, science, technology, and economics are intertwined. Thus it is no surprise that countries are competing in science and science policy, as this stem cell policy map shows:

http://www.mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap.html

What Obama's executive order will do is to put the U.S. in step with the policies of countries representing more than half the world's population. Looked at this way, the change in U.S. policy looks anything but extreme.

Professor Schmalz' argument that competitiveness is itself "an ideological construct that legitimates the exercise of power" is, of course, correct. Competition is also the motivating force behind the economic system that has enabled people to raise their standard of living. In this respect, science, technology, and economics are intertwined. Thus it is no surprise that countries are competing in science and science policy, as this stem cell policy map shows:

http://www.mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap.html

What Obama's executive order will do is to put the U.S. in step with the policies of countries representing more than half the world's population. Looked at this way, the change in U.S. policy looks anything but extreme.

The fastest growing voting demographic and possibly the largest voting bloc in the USA is ? ::

The Immoral Majority i.e The 70 million "mothers and fathers of aborted children" whose ranks grow by two million per year. They easily put BO in the White/Blood Red House!!!! The math: ~one million abortions/yr since 1973(Roe vs Wade) X 35 yrs x 2 parents/aborted child = ~ 70 million.

The popular vote: 69,456,897 votes for BO, 59,934,814 votes for JM.

And as he promised the members of the Immoral Majority, BO is now the leading advocate of abortion on demand to include the destruction of human embryos.