Search results for the tag, "Stem-Cell Research"


April 11th, 2007

Trimming the Trees

Pit easily exploitable emotions against deep philosophical convictions, and you get a glimpse of the debate over stem-cell research.

“Consequently,” write Robert George and Thomas Berg, “we propose six facts on which people on either side of the . . . debate should be able to agree”:

1. There is no “ban” on human embryonic stem cell research in the United States.
2. We are a long way away from therapies derived from embryonic stem cells.
3. The human embryo has at least some degree of special moral status.
4. There are non-controversial alternatives worth exploring.
5. Concerns about embryo destruction are not only religious.
6. [Omitted because it’s nonsense.]

One of the best strategies for reasoned discourse—where the goal is enlightenment, not victory—is to begin with common ground. The above essay is a good example, since by trimming the trees, if you will, it shifts the discussion to the forest, like where life begins and what research taxpayer dollars should fund.

My proposal for the next such primer concerns another subject fueled more by ignorance and arrogance than by facts: global warming. Here’s a start:

1. The earth is warming.
2. Human activity is partly responsible for the warming.
3. Environmentalists have a track record of alarmism.

From here, we can delve into the essential issue: will the warming be disastrous?


comments Icon Comments Off on Trimming the Trees
Arrow Icon Posted by Jonathan Rick in , ,
July 14th, 2005

Moral vs. Practical Arguments: Stem Cell Research

After President Bush rejected a stem cell bill, he held a news conference with babies born of in vitro fertilization

“By its very nature, government politicizes everything it touches. Science is no exception. Stem cell research needs neither government money nor politics. It is better is to get the government out and let the private sector continue its good work. Those people calling for increased funding could take out their checkbooks and support it. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research would not be forced to pay for it.”

This is the moral argument against government funding of stem-cell research. But what about the practical ones in favor of such funding? Here are the two I’m wrestling with, along with counterarguments.

1. Government does so much today that it has no business doing, and since this isn’t likely to change appreciably anytime soon, isn’t it better that at least some of our taxes go toward life-giving measures like stem cell research now?

Counterargument: Once government takes an industry into its tentacles, rarely, if ever, does it release it.

2. Isn’t the state the only resource today that can underwrite significant research, a la California’s Proposition 71 ($3 billion over 10 years)? Is stem cell research lucrative enough to draw the top scientists privately?

Counterargument: The Human Genome Project.

Addendum (10/5/2005): Ronald Bailey documents the private sector’s abundant efforts thus far.


comments Icon Comments Off on Moral vs. Practical Arguments: Stem Cell Research
Arrow Icon Posted by Jonathan Rick in