Almost no one was surprised last week when US President Barack Obama lifted restrictions on stem cell research that involved the destruction of human embryos. Even jaded Washington watchers are adjusting to the idea that this is a president with an eerie determination to do exactly what he said he would do during his campaign.
Those who approve such research applauded Obama's action. Those who disapprove condemned it. But some commentary focused at least as much on the nature of the president's moral argument as on the specific conclusions he reached.
When it comes to the controversy over human embryonic stem cell research, moral argument has not been much in evidence. The president spoke of a popular consensus in favor of it reached “after much discussion, debate and reflection.” That is a kindly description of the hype, exaggeration and denunciation that have dominated the controversy.
Politicians, scientists and Hollywood stars conjured up visions of cures of biblical proportions. One member of the House of Representatives equated opposition to embryonic stem cell research with refusing “a cure for your child’s cancer.” Another called such opposition “a sentence of death of millions of Americans.”
Not long after the death of former US president Ronald Reagan, his younger son, Ron, told delegates at the 2004 Democratic convention to imagine “your own personal biological repair kit standing by at the hospital.”
“Sound like magic?” Reagan said. “Welcome to the future of medicine.”
Scientists who knew better kept quiet.
“People need a fairy tale,” Ronald McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, explained to the Washington Post in 2004.
Recently, Nicholas Wade in the Science section of the New York Times summed this all up: “Members of Congress and advocates for fighting diseases have long spoken of human embryonic stem cell research as if it were a sure avenue to quick cures for intractable afflictions. Scientists have not publicly objected to such high-flown hopes, which have helped fuel new sources of grant money like the US$3 billion initiative in California for stem cell research.
“In private, however,” the article continued, “many researchers have projected much more modest goals for embryonic stem cells.”
Last Monday, Obama certainly avoided the worst of this recent history. He warned twice against overstating the promise of stem cell research, even if he did envision “a day when words like ‘terminal’ and ‘incurable’ are finally retired from our vocabulary.”
More important, he acknowledged that “thoughtful and decent people” opposed this research, and he claimed to “understand their concerns.” His own view was that “with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.”
What were those “concerns” that Obama understood or those “perils” that he would avoid? The president did not say. So one could object that his moral argument stopped in mid-air. How can one evaluate what he called “a difficult and delicate balance” when it is not clear exactly what is being balanced?
The more challenging objection — again, not to the president’s specific stance on embryonic stem cell research, but to the general form of his argument — went directly to a theme running through his announcement and echoed in enthusiastic comments from research proponents:
Science, it was said, should be isolated from politics, from ideology, from dogma, from religion.
Sounds good if all one means is that the current administration will treat science with more respect than many people believe its predecessor did. Sounds good if all one means by politics is partisan maneuvering or by ideology, dogma and religion, some form of blind belief unwilling to engage alternative viewpoints.
But these words frequently function as weapons. One person’s ideology can be someone else's political philosophy or even morality. One person's dogma can be someone else's self-evident truths. And politics is the way that people decide how they will live together, by what moral standards and to what ends.
Historians, sociologists and scientists themselves have generated a small library of books demonstrating how much of science has been driven and shaped by politics and ideology — and economics, too — all the while imagining that it was value-free, “just the facts,” as Sergeant Friday (from the old Dragnet TV show) and perhaps Obama would say.
Science has certainly developed safeguards to isolate its work from distorting influences. The danger is that those safeguards, like antibodies run amok, can also isolate it from morality.
Two days after Obama's announcement, the New York Times ran three science-related articles. One was about stem cell researchers worried that any new federal financing might prove insufficient. It also ran an article about a prolific medical researcher who admitted fabricating research that just happened to support the products of the pharmaceutical company underwriting the research. Both were reminders of how much science is affected by big money.
And the paper ran a page 1 article about European nations' debating whether surgical or chemical castration is an effective, humane and legitimate treatment to rehabilitate violent sex offenders. No one can read that article and imagine that this is simply a scientific question, to be resolved by medical scientists on their own terms, rather than one that is profoundly moral and political.
Is that any less true when it comes to not only human embryonic stem cell research but also a host of other ethically fraught, knotty scientific questions now challenging Americans?
Is a new foreign partner for Taiwan emerging in the Middle East? Last week, Taiwanese media reported that Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) secretly visited Israel, a country with whom Taiwan has long shared unofficial relations but which has approached those relations cautiously. In the wake of China’s implicit but clear support for Hamas and Iran in the wake of the October 2023 assault on Israel, Jerusalem’s calculus may be changing. Both small countries facing literal existential threats, Israel and Taiwan have much to gain from closer ties. In his recent op-ed for the Washington Post, President William
Taiwan-India relations appear to have been put on the back burner this year, including on Taiwan’s side. Geopolitical pressures have compelled both countries to recalibrate their priorities, even as their core security challenges remain unchanged. However, what is striking is the visible decline in the attention India once received from Taiwan. The absence of the annual Diwali celebrations for the Indian community and the lack of a commemoration marking the 30-year anniversary of the representative offices, the India Taipei Association and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center, speak volumes and raise serious questions about whether Taiwan still has a coherent India
A stabbing attack inside and near two busy Taipei MRT stations on Friday evening shocked the nation and made headlines in many foreign and local news media, as such indiscriminate attacks are rare in Taiwan. Four people died, including the 27-year-old suspect, and 11 people sustained injuries. At Taipei Main Station, the suspect threw smoke grenades near two exits and fatally stabbed one person who tried to stop him. He later made his way to Eslite Spectrum Nanxi department store near Zhongshan MRT Station, where he threw more smoke grenades and fatally stabbed a person on a scooter by the roadside.
Recent media reports have again warned that traditional Chinese medicine pharmacies are disappearing and might vanish altogether within the next 15 years. Yet viewed through the broader lens of social and economic change, the rise and fall — or transformation — of industries is rarely the result of a single factor, nor is it inherently negative. Taiwan itself offers a clear parallel. Once renowned globally for manufacturing, it is now best known for its high-tech industries. Along the way, some businesses successfully transformed, while others disappeared. These shifts, painful as they might be for those directly affected, have not necessarily harmed society
RSS