President Barack Obama’s decision to support embryonic stem cell
research with federal funds has triggered a confusing yet timely
controversy involving science, religion, politics, and ideology. It
would not be inaccurate to place the blame for this episode at the
doorstep of the George W. Bush administration. Evidence has surfaced in
the media indicating the way in which the Bush administration misused
scientific research on issues dealing with global warming, and to a
minor extent birth control policy and evolution, supposedly to advance
its political ideology against environmentally-friendly policies and in
favor of sexual abstinence and a neo-creationist view known as
Intelligent Design.But, as it often happens when electoral
politics bring about a change in political philosophies and ideologies,
the pendulum swings to the opposite end. In his decision to support
embryonic stem cell research, President Obama signaled that his
administration would reverse the Bush’s “war on science.” Accordingly,
Obama has indicated that his policies will rely on “scientific
decisions based on facts, not ideology.” The president may have further
confused the issue by asserting that the controversy falsely involves a
“choice between sound science and moral values,” adding that both can
coexist.To make sense of this controversy will require several clarifications and definitions of terms.The
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines Ideology as, “a manner or the
content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture”
and as “the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a
sociopolitical program.” More concretely, a political ideology refers
to a set of “half-truths” or un-confirmed truths based on belief and
custom and even empirical verification.It is both the intention
and the outcome of all political ideologies to guide the conduct (the
moral behavior) of its followers. As such, ideologies prescribe conduct
that is deemed to be moral and proscribe behavior considered to be
immoral. Therefore, we can safely state that there is a democratic as
well as a republican political ideology, each one considering itself
the “correct” and more moral position while regarding the other as
being less correct, and without indicating it so explicitly, not as
moral. In this controversy religion plays a role, on both sides. There
are religious people—and likely atheists and agnostics, too—who oppose
embryonic stem cell research and who consider their position a moral
one. Does that mean that those who are in favor of this type of
research, who likely include religious believers, atheists and
agnostics, are less moral? Perhaps only according to the standards of
those who oppose embryonic stem cell research.In other words,
opponents of embryonic stem cell research believe that the embryo is
the first manifestation of human life; the first stage that, if
allowed, will eventually result in what we are today. Actually, this is
no longer a matter of belief; it is a scientific fact, regardless
whether it is called embryo, human seed, genetic material, or a one
day-old unborn baby. Consequently, destroying life at this level for
the sake of improving later stages of human life finds no justification
unless one is prepared to make compromises with human life at all
stages. By the way, religious belief is not a requirement to arrive at
this conclusion. There are humanists (who do not believe in God) who
uphold this view on humanitarian/ethical grounds.Proponents and
supporters of embryonic stem cell research, on the other hand, also
claim that their position is moral. No one will argue that being
called, as the president said, “to care for each other and work to ease
human suffering,” is not a moral imperative. How can it not be! We can
all rest assured that even those who oppose embryonic stem cell
research ardently support the president’s very humane position.Unfortunately,
this issue mirrors the abortion controversy in that pro-lifers are not
consistent when it comes to argue in favor of lessening human suffering
in other aspects of life while pro-choice supporters tend to favor more
life outside the womb while paying lip service to unborn-life, and now,
dying-life. As a result, the embryonic stem cell research, just like
abortion, is mired in a political and ethical controversy.But
political ideologies, republican and democratic, are not the only
proponents of moral behavior; religious beliefs, and atheism, can, may,
should, and do propose ethical guidelines in a pluralistic society. The
charge that those who oppose embryonic stem cell research do so because
of their religious beliefs—as the president seems to have implied--is
flawed and frivolous, particularly since there are religious believers,
the president included, who support this research.There is,
however, an additional component, one that so far has been left out of
the controversy: science. Many are not aware that science, too, may
constitute an ideology and, as such, generate its own “morality.”
However, the only moral claim the “scientific ideology” can make--‘if
it works or if it accomplishes what we want to do, it is good’--is
utilitarian in nature and pertains only to the efficacy of its results.As
respectable as science is, and as respectful as educated people should
be of science, there is a problem that is often ignored. In their work,
scientists follow the very specific and universally accepted rules and
techniques embraced by the scientific method. The scientific method,
however, cannot prescribe moral behavior since it cannot scientifically
confirm one type of moral position as being superior to another.
Science cannot prescribe normative or moral behavior, not because it is
forbidden by civil law or any higher power, but simply because doing so
would contradict the nature—and the rules—of the scientific method. In
a way, think of players not being allowed to overrule an umpire or a
referee in sports. If players were allowed to do so, the rules would
cease to exist and instead there would be chaos. Scientists have long
accepted this limitation as one of the main tenets of the philosophy of
science.This means that scientists can become participants in
moral/ethical decision-making as members of society but without
attributing their moral positions to science. Otherwise, scientists can
drive society into moral chaos and in the process corrupt what is among
human nature’s greatest achievements. Followers of the “scientific
ideology,” (scientists and those of us who “revere” science) must be
mindful of this tendency, particularly when conducting human
experimentation.Falsifying or repressing scientific data to
support specific policies on political, economic, religious, or
non-religious grounds is, from the standpoints of reason and humanity,
an abominable practice and should be rightfully condemned by all.
Deciding not to conduct or to limit scientific experimentation and
research on specific aspects of human life on the basis of political
and/or religious considerations, however, is not necessarily
anti-science. On the contrary, moral values need and should be
discussed and decided upon by the political and religious (including
atheists and agnostics) communities, not by science.Not taking
this view into account leads to incomprehensible generalizations such
as the assertion made by doctors at the University of Miami in Coral
Gables, Florida. According to the media, these doctors stated that
their decisions “will be made based on science, not religion.” The
director of clinical ethics following this view added that, “you can
have your belief based on religion, but you can’t impose it on others,”
without realizing that what has just taken place is that one imposition
(Bush’s) has been substituted for another (Obama’s). All laws impose,
and in a pluralistic society all individuals, religious or not, can
advance their beliefs and transform them into law. In our society,
being religious is no less dignified than being an atheist, a
scientist, an artist or a politician.Likely on account of
scientific and technological achievements, as a society we have become
more utilitarian and visual than ever before. We have grown to be
highly sensitive of babies, teens, grown-ups and healthy elderly people
and want to preserve and enhance their well being. Meanwhile, pre-born
life and the dying are disappearing from our sensorial screens along
with the very poor, collateralized victims of war and the soldiers who
fight these wars.This is the risk that scientists run when they
evaluate experimentation and research primarily by the utility of their
results. If we allow scientists to pursue their activities without
regard to moral considerations, as poets do with their poetic licenses,
then we should think twice about how we judged the Nazis when they
conducted what they claimed was genuine scientific experimentation with
human beings.It seems inconceivable today that our society
would ever consent to such barbarity. Nonetheless, we know that our
government has conducted similar experimentation on unwilling victims
for military purposes in the past. In addition, medical science, our
doctors and researchers, and us, forever potential patients, have
immensely benefited from the results of Nazi experimentation. Should we
be thankful? Can we be thankful?The scientific mind is
inquisitive by nature. The unknown captivates the scientific mind, and
its efforts to discover, to innovate, to invent, and to search for the
next breakthrough--particularly when it comes to human life--is as
splendid and marvelous as it can be dangerous. Only we as a society can
impose the necessary restraints, and the most basic one is the
unlimited respect for the dignity of human life in all of its
manifestations.Readers may reach me through e-mails to: author@jricardoplanas.com.
|
