President Barack Obama has signed the Presidential Memorandum clearing the way for the use of taxpayers' money to fund embryonic stem cell research. The decision reverses Bush administration policy and fulfills a campaign promise. In his remarks the President cites the will of the majority of Americans and promises strict guidelines in the publicly funded research. President Obama says that we must respect the point of view of "thoughtful and decent people" who oppose the reversal, but that he has reversed "a false choice between sound science and moral values."
The PA Pro-Life Federation, in a statement, calls the decision a "a tragic mistake," "a bailout of the biotech industry," and in strong language it accuses President Obama of "betraying the American principle of justice for all." Democratic NJ U.S. Senator Robert Mendendez, however, applauds the reversal, saying, "good, sound science should be the basis of our medical, technological and environmental decisions." I stipulate that each party means well, but I think it's worth considering if both these approaches as stated are not only troubling but also are examples of the problem in the discourse on this and related issues.
Words like betrayal or suggestions that science is somehow immune from moral implication if one party says it is are flawed avenues. The use of the word betrayal in the same sentence with a President can seem at the least inappropriate and disrespectful. As for the other side, there is a theme running through the President's remarks that by this decision and his policy that politics or ideology has now been removed from science or that somehow science is now neutral or more neutral or has more integrity. However, is there not an error in suggesting that if you are dispassionate or even well-meaning going into a scientific endeavor, that the process or the outcome is automatically dispassionate or good? If one side is asked to recognize that, then both should be asked. Few people, if anyone, will argue with the goals of finding cures, which have eluded us. But an open mind will likely continue to accept that embryonic stem cell research is not just a scientific decision. It is a moral one and a political one as well. There may be more danger in ignoring or fearing that realization than in accepting it.
Republican Congressman Mike Castle, of Delaware, was front and center at the President's announcement and signing. Rep. Castle supports the President's decision. After the signing, he told me that he will work in Congress to make permanent the President's Memorandum so that the issue is not forever a political football. Mr. Castle understands the ethical and discourse questions I raised above. He agrees that of course there are political and moral overtones and that the issue may remain "grey." Congressman Castle believes ethical standards can be put in place that prevent farm-like production of embryos and prevent "money from exchanging hands." He says this Memorandum and what he will seek to make law through Congress mean that only embryos that were created with the intent of having children, but that through other life events were destined to be destroyed, can be used and only with parental permission and after counseling as to all the options for the embryo, including adoption.
From a political view, today's action by the President is a victory for the left, while another arrow in the quiver of the right trying to re-gather the troops in its fractured army.
Steve Highsmith is a political analyst for NBC10. He is covering President Barack Obama's first 100 days in office for NBCPhiladelphia.com. Steve also hosts NBC10 Live @ Issue every Sunday at 9:30 a.m.
