The president’s recent decision on embryonic stem cell research has been described in most reports as a compromise that balances the views of scientists, who want to move forward unrestrictedly, against the views of the religious right, who call for a total ban on stem cell experiments.
In fact, the Bush proposal is not a compromise; it is a near-total capitulation to the enemies of biotechnology.
Bush backed a moratorium on federal funding for research that involves the gathering of new embryonic stem cells. This sweeping restriction is “balanced” against a small bit of pro-science window dressing: Bush agreed to allow federal research on what he claimed were “more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines” derived by private researchers from embryos that have already been destroyed. Since “the life and death decision has already been made,” Bush concluded, research on these stem cells is permitted.
There is less to this window-dressing than meets the eye. Some scientists doubt that there are actually 60 stem cell lines, and they are certain that federal researchers will not have access to many of them. Moreover, without the ability to gather new stem cell lines, scientists will be compelled to artificially limit the scope of their knowledge. As Yale University scientist Diane Krause points out, “We need to see a variety of [stem cell lines] in order to fully understand the applications to multiple different diseases.”
The Bush proposal is the equivalent of telling astronomers that they can make calculations based on previous observations of the stars, but they have to dismantle their telescopes and refrain from making new observations. Such restrictions are designed to suffocate a whole field of knowledge by depriving it of new material for future research.
Any doubt about Bush’s intentions were dispelled when he said he would appoint “a president’s council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations” — and then named Leon Kass as the council’s chairman.
Kass, a University of Chicago “biomedical ethicist,” was one of the most influential advocates behind the draconian ban on cloning just passed by the House. He is openly hostile to the whole endeavor of genetic research and has even spoken out against in vitro fertilization, the decades-old technology used to create “test-tube babies.” Kass concluded his testimony before Congress in June with a warning against making humans “slaves to unregulated innovation.” His antidote, presumably, is to make scientists slaves to anti-innovation regulations. When he becomes the president’s biotechnology czar, Kass will seek to regulate stem cell research out of existence.
The appointment of Kass indicates the mindset behind this attempt to squelch genetic research. He views such restrictions as part of a broader crusade against “tampering” with human nature. He opposes the “technological imperative” of “bio-zealots” who seek to put “human nature … on the operating table.” Under all the high-flown rhetoric, Kass’s arguments are just a sophisticated version of the old saw that if God had meant us to fly, he would have given us wings.
Consider what would happen if we took this superstitious awe of the “natural” order of things and applied it to other issues. It is the natural order of things — at least until this past century — that most humans die young from accidents and disease. So should we ban all medical technology? The irony is that Kass is the one who is arguing for the suppression of human nature. It is human nature — indeed, it is our defining characteristic — to use our minds to understand the natural order of things and to alter it. There is nothing more human than technology.
President Bush’s decision only limits federally funded science — but the federal government has a powerful influence on private research. Few scientists can afford to refuse federal grants, and much research that is not federally funded is tied to other research that is. As a result, limits on federal research tend to have a suppressing effect on all other research. More important, the president’s council will set a precedent, creating restrictions that allegedly determine what is “ethical” research. Any private endeavors that defy these limits will then be branded as “unethical.” Draconian rules for federally funded research will serve as a launching point for regulations to be applied, eventually, to all research.
President Bush is right when he says that this issue is at “the leading edge of a series of moral hazards.” The primary hazard, however, is his attempt to suppress the unfettered use of science to improve human life.
