At issue: Should questions of scientific ethics be left to scientists?

WASHINGTON
The recent decision by President Obama to reverse federal policy and allow embryonic stem-cell research prompted a variety of ethics analyses in the world and national press last week.

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, who had argued that national policy should be extended to allow federal funding for research on embryonic stem-cell lines derived from discarded embryos in fertility clinics, wrote in a piece carried by RealClearPolitics.com that, “While I favor moving that moral line to additionally permit the use of spare fertility clinic embryos, Obama replaced it with no line at all. He pointedly left open the creation of cloned — and noncloned sperm-and-egg-derived — human embryos solely for the purpose of dismemberment and use for parts.”

Obama actually denounced such prospects last week, saying the new stem-cell policy is designed so that it “never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction,” notes the Associated Press. Such cloning, Obama said, “is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society or any society.”

Also disputed in the press was the question of who should make moral decisions involving technology. Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman contends that society should not automatically defer to scientists on matters of scientific ethics. Responding to an Obama administration claim that decisions should be based on “sound scientific practice … instead of dogma,” Chapman wrote: “But one person’s dogma is another one’s ethical imperative or moral principle. Science can tell us how to build a nuclear weapon. But science can’t tell us whether we should use it.”

“Just because research may be useful in combating disease,” Chapman argues, “doesn’t mean it’s ethically acceptable. The infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment — in which the federal Public Health Service secretly withheld treatment from infected black men to learn more about the disease — might have yielded valuable data. But no scientific discovery could possibly have justified it.”

Melody Barnes, Obama’s domestic policy adviser, wrote in an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle that the administration will move forward in a “in a responsible, respectful manner. Stem cell research is the subject of diverse, deeply held views. While we will not always agree, the president respects these views. The Obama administration will support stem cell research only when it is scientifically worthy, and carried out responsibly. Our administration will ensure stem cell research is never taken lightly, conducted unnecessarily or abused.”

An Economist editorial argues that while “reasonable people will continue to disagree about what sort of research is moral,” debates will continue, with nuanced arguments being reduced to convenient slogans.

Sources: San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 13 — Chicago Tribune, Mar. 13 — Economist, Mar. 13 — RealClearPolitics.com, Mar. 12 — AP, Mar. 9.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Mar. 9 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 16 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 9 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 8, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 29, 2008.