Scientia Rex — The Debate Over Stem Cell Research

In college I had an essay question on a history exam about the key issues in the presidential election of 1800 the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Bank of the United States, alliances with Britain or France, etc. 200 years hence when students write about the election of 2004 they will discuss tax policy, Terrorism, the so-called War in Iraq, and embryonic stem cell research.

This article is meant to neither support nor oppose embryonic stem cell research. Rather this article is an attempt to frame the debate rationally.

John Kerry who supports embryonic stem cell research has gathered acoterie of celebrities to support his position. In a recent New Hampshire appearance Kerry appeared with Michael J Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease. Kerry said that President Bush's policies, "sacrifice science for extreme right-wing ideology". Kerry's certainly sounded as if he was advocating the advancement of science without the fetters of ideology.

While I believe in scientific inquiry — I posit that science can only truly advance in a moral and ethical framework.

Of course those who believe that science is king — Scientia Rex — will point to famous incidents in history where moral authority served to censor scientific inquiry. Of course Galileo comes to mind first.

Galileo was the primary proponent of Copernican cosmology in the early 17th century. His view of the universe was that the sun was just one star among many and not (as held by the Ptolemaic view) the center of the universe. His prominence as a scientist and mathematician eventually earned him the scrutiny of the Inquisition. At first he was protected by Pope Urban VIII. Eventually Galileo was brought before the Inquisition and he was forced to recant his views.

But what of other examples? There have also been infamous times when science has marched on without the restraining influence of ethic and morality. The results in these instacnes have been disasterous. In an era when Nazi Scientists performed experiments on twins, prisoners, Gypsies and Jews to further their study of genetics. These experiments typically resulted in the subjects' death and dissection.

Today there are ethical guidelines that govern human drug tests, psychological and solialogical testiong of children, animal research, etc. The pursuit of science advances the frontiers of human knowledge. This advance must however occur within moral and ethical grounds. John Kerry claims that there should be no bounds when it comes to scientific research. He is really making the wrong argument. There must be bounds — there always will be bounds.

This election is not about whether there are moral or ethical bounds — it about where to draw the boundaries