blog.bioethics.net

"$2 million in pure research funds to Hwang's team, and $24.4 million facility assistance for stem cell and related research" has produced some remarkable results.
But wait -- doesn't this demonstrate quite conclusively that progress in stem cell research does _not_ require the sort of "big science" program that only a government can mount?
Yet if that's the case, then what's the justification for spending tax monies on such ethically controversial research? Some of those tax dollars would be contributed by (i.e., extorted from) people who find such research profoundly immoral. If we live in a liberal polity that truly respects moral diversity, shouldn't we be looking for ways to support this research that will not require those with sincere moral objections to the research to contribute to its support?

- by Bob Koepp on May 26, 2005 at 10:49 AM | link

The headline is a work of art, Art! Why the lack of "embryonic" in the title? Because, of course the US has much more than one type of "stem cell research."
Can you find the amount spent by the US Federal government on in vitro fertilization research, compared to the British?
I don't have the numbers at hand, but I'd imagine that in the first half of the last century, Hitler's Germany spent more on twin studies that we did, too.
I have an idea: Everyone who wants to pay for this unethical research should open a bank account and pay for it themselves. Perhaps you could get volunteers to run it. Or even sponsors in the corporate world, set up grants that have nothing to do with my money.
Research scientists are just like the rest of us. They have the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. But, they don't have the right to a Federally guaranteed salary and all the money for labs that they want.

- by Beverly on May 26, 2005 at 11:16 AM | link

In expressing their disapproval of spending federal tax dollars on stem cell research, both Beverly and Bob Koepp use the tired old argument of the right that citizens should have veto power over spending tax money on programs they find "immoral" - the right uses the same argument against spending on PBS and the NEA.
Personally, I find it "immoral" that my government spends my tax money building nuclear arsenals and paying for abstinence-only sex education programs. But I also recognize that I live in a democracy in which people hold wildly varying belief systems, and that the government is therefore likely to use my tax money both for things I support and for things I don't believe in. That's the deal we make for being U.S. citizens - nobody gets their way all the time!

- by Darby Penney on May 26, 2005 at 12:06 PM | link

The "tired old argument" which Darby Penney attributes to "the right" is, rather, a straightforward application of standard liberal principles of tolerance and respect for diversity. The proffered "counter-agrument," on the other hand, amounts to a variation on "two wrongs make a right" -- which even children are expected to eschew. That supposedly liberal minded people scoff at the notion that we should make reasonable efforts to accommodate the moral sensibilites of our fellow citizens is very sad indeed.
From the vantage of traditional liberal thought, ESCR should represent a "compelling societal interest" if we are to justify compelling support from those with moral objections to the research in question. I'm willing to entertain any serious arguments on this point, but I must confess that I very much doubt that a convincing case can be made that society will suffer irreparable harm if we make support of ESCR "optional" for our citizens.
For the record, I am very much in favor of pursuing ESCR, and am more than willing to contribute financially to such research. It's not on my own behalf that I appeal to "liberals" to show some respect for those with whom I too disagree -- in short, to bring their actions into line with their professed values.

- by Bob Koepp on May 26, 2005 at 1:06 PM | link

While I agree that it would be preferable if all decisions about government spending were made by consensus or through negotiation, and it be great if everyone's moral sensibilities could always be accomodated in decision-making on important societal issues, I think this would bring most human endeavors to a screeching halt.
It's likely that almost every government -funded program raises ethical issues for some person or group of people - does this mean that governent should fund no programs?
If people who find ESCR ethically objectionable should be able to opt-out of having their tax dollars put into that pot, why can't I opt out of having my taxes fund the military, or public relations for embryo adoption, or any other government program I have an ethical problem with? While that would satisfy my moral sensibilites, it's just not practical to run a government that way.

- by Darby Penney on May 26, 2005 at 5:29 PM | link

Darby - While it's true that virtually any government expenditure could generate moral ire on the part of at least some people, we can question the sincerity of the moral beliefs in question, and sometimes we can rank moral issues (at least roughly) in terms of seriousness. Most people think murder is pretty serious stuff, for example, in a different class entirely from offending the sensibilities of the prudishly inclined. And though I don't believe that ESCR involves murder, I'm persuaded that some people do sincerely believe this. Then there's the escape clause alluded to earlier: if a compelling societal interest is at stake, it might moot objections even to murder.
As for the "me too" sentiments expressed in your final paragraph, I'm more than happy to extend to you the same consideration I want extended to the opponents of ESCR. I don't know why you believe there is no practical way in which individuals could allocate at least a portion of their tax contributions. Have you actually tried to imagine how it might work?
Finally, as an alternative to tax-based funding, especially in cases like ESCR where there is little to no prospect of reaching broad ethical consensus, why not rely on private initiatives to which people can contribute or not as they see fit? Not so many years ago that would have been recognized as a typically liberal approach.

- by Bob Koepp on May 26, 2005 at 6:28 PM | link

We can sharpen this debate by looking not at "government funding of things some people find morally objectionable" but "government funding that violates some people's notion of moral status"
Bob K suggests that the issue here is murder, which everyone agrees is serious stuff. Really, though, we are dealing with a disputed class of killing. If as a pacifist, I could opt out of every government program I thought was murder, I could opt out of all pentagon spending and funding for state executions.
I don't know right now how to deal with government funding that violates people conceptions of moral status, but I will note this: if animal rights advocates were treated like fetal rights advocates, a lot of government spending would disappear, not because of government spending on animal experimentation, which can be justified by compelling social interest, but because of government meat subsidies.

- by Rob Loftis on May 28, 2005 at 12:19 AM | link

If animals were having these sorts of conversations, perhaps they would say, "First, do no harm."
The function of government (at least according to the early documents of the U.S.) is the common defense of innate, unalienable human rights - whether those humans are embryonic, geriatric or any stage of life in between.

- by Beverly on May 28, 2005 at 4:30 AM | link

Rob - I'm all for "sharpening the debate." You're absolutely right that what we are dealing with is a "disputed class of killing." Why disputed? Because some of the disputants claim that this killing constitutes murder, while others (myself included) do not view it as murder. So you haven't presented an alternative interpretation at all.
You also manage to completely ignore the various qualifications on "opting out" I suggested; i.e., we can question the sincerity (including the consistency) of moral beliefs, how "serious" is the moral issue to those who raise objections, and whether societal interests mights moot the objections. Instead, you mention the petagaon, state executions and meat subsidies as if these constitute an argument against the consistent application of traditional liberal principles of tolerance and respect for moral diversity.
So where's the argument to the effect that ESCR is so important that we liberals should compel support from those to whom it represents murder?

- by Bob Koepp on May 28, 2005 at 11:37 AM | link

Bob: I'm not so much giving an argument in favor of public funding of ESCR as using broad reflective equilibrium to develop a standard that can be applied across different debates. My point is that if liberal principles forbid federal funding of ESCR, parity of reasoning would demand other broad changes. If ESCR is out of bounds, then destructive research on primates should be out of bounds too. I'm not saying right now whether both should be allowed or both should be banned. I'm just claiming that my people (animal rights types) should get as much consideration as Beverly's people, being as how we are all reasonable people acting in good faith.
I didn't think I was sharpening things by changing the term to "disputed classes of killing," but I did think changing it to "government funding that violates some people's notion of moral status" helped. The issue isn't disputed killings like executions or killings in warfare, where the justification is disputed. The issue is whether the thing being killed has moral standing at all. That does narrow things.
I'm sorry if I looked like I was glossing over your ways of opting out. I didn't go into them because my main concern was that all such ways of opting out be applied consistently.

- by rob helpy-chalk on May 28, 2005 at 7:58 PM | link

I'm sorry, Rob, for reading more into your remarks than you put there. I share your concern that we be consistent in our efforts to find ways to "excuse" people from supporting practices that they believe are immoral. It would, after all, be quite illiberal of me to act inconsistently on such a point.

- by Bob Koepp on May 28, 2005 at 10:56 PM | link