Well, It Worked with Schiavo: The President Prepares the Nation for a Stem Cell Crisis

President Bush, who many believed would feel more free to move to the center on stem cell research in his final term in office, has planted his feet squarely in the middle of the right wing on stem cell research. In the face of moderate Republican support for the research, the President spent the morning (we noted) with the Catholic conference and has now begun to lobby Congress directly:

"I made it very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money to promote science which destroys life in order to save life is _ I'm against that. And therefore, if the bill does that, I will veto it."

It makes a great deal of sense as a package: the President's man in the Senate is fighting hard to get a conservative package of judges confirmed - virtually every one of whom has spoken or written against abortion, stem cell research or both - and he devoted an enormous amount of time and energy to the Schiavo matter.

In both cases the President is creating an image of himself as strong on moral matters - and has adopted language about "erring on the side of life" that while spoken about Schiavo has telegraphed his strong support for the Kass agenda.

There are all sorts of reasons one might conjecture for the President's newfound vigor on stem cell research.

First, there isn't much at stake. The energy in stem cell research is in the states now, not the Federal government, and anyone who believes that the Fed is going to become a major player in stem cell research is delusional. So the President gets to appear to fight against stem cell research for the religious right, while quietly allowing the pharma and biotech business, and many wealthy constituents, to advance that research as much as they like from places like, say, California, which is about to invest more money in stem cell research per annum than most of the rest of the world combined. It is a bit like Pres Bush Sr.'s fight for extreme sentences for marijuana use in Federal courts - you can appear to be tough on crime by pushing a ridiculously steep penalty for lighting up a joint, but it won't hurt you in the long term because there are almost no cases of smoking marijuana that will ever see a Federal court.

Second, the President is able to drown out the incredible accusations of ethics violations (or accusations of overreaching on Schiavo) by his most senior lieutenants in Congress. And he is able to give those under fire an opportunity to speak out in public on ethics, or at least to be associated with the battle for 'innocence' and 'the vulnerable' twice in as many months. Tom DeLay is particularly interested in stem cells, all of a sudden, and that might be the most telling evidence of the Bush strategy in that regard. This is a particularly useful strategy in Western and Southern states, where concern about ethics in Congress is growing, but where the operative rule about gay marriage, abortion and euthanasia is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Third, and most obviously, the President appears hell-bent on suppressing the growth of a moderate, conciliatory block of Republicans in the House and Senate. He knew what he was facing with Sen. Specter and Sen. Orrin Hatch, whose views on science politics have been fairly stable for years, but who do plenty of work for the Republican party when called. But one can see how he'd grow tired in recent weeks of watching Republicans line up one after another, in the states and in Congress, to support bills that in their view are more in line with the will of the public - the same public that bombarded Republicans' offices with complaints about the Schiavo debacle. The President needs to be tough on collaborations that take the form of Clinton/Gingrich.

And perhaps there is a basic philosophical orientation in the administration that comes from conviction: as Obi-Wan reminded us, Sith Lords can only see the world in terms of absolutes.

Either way, buckle your seat belts for a week that will see the President of the United States make the strongest statement against science to be made by the leader of a superpower since the Popes of the 12th century.

posted May 21, 2005 | link | jump to the comments (7)

comments

How ridiculous.
If one opposes funding particular proposed scientific experiments because of ethical concerns one isn't lining up against science.
Further, the assertion that virtually every judicial nominee has spoken or written against abortion or, euphemistically, "stem cell research" is just a bald-faced lie. Line them up, and let's see who has. There's no support for that assertion, at all, and anyone who would make it is a damned fool, either for believing it or thinking that his readers would be gullible enough to.
And: how much time, exactly, did Bush spend on the Schiavo matter? I was under the impression that he signed the bill. Was there something more involved than that? This picture you're painting of a vigorous and engaged president is interesting, and I'd love to hear more about it! Please, continue with the tall tales!

- by Thomas on May 21, 2005 at 12:15 PM | link

If anyone wants to help, we're building a new effort to fight back on stem cells:
www.StemPAC.com

- by John Hlinko on May 21, 2005 at 8:18 PM | link

A perfect example of political bias and censorship on a supposed "ethics" website. What happened to my comment from the 21st?

- by Beverly on May 23, 2005 at 3:27 PM | link

Beverly: your comment from the 21st seems to be where you put it on the 21st, under the "Caplan in MSNBC...." entry. I think a little wariness about anyone's motives is usually a good thing, and I am myself sometimes concerned about some of the thing that appear (or don't appear) here, but I like to try to avoid going directly to the conspiracy theory, it tends to under mind legitimate criticisms.

- by garine on May 23, 2005 at 5:01 PM | link

There were 2 remarks. One on this thread about the political nature of the article, one on Caplan's comments.

- by Beverly on May 24, 2005 at 8:34 AM | link

Has anyone on this list read Dr. William H. Frist's 1989 book, _Transplant: A Heart Surgeon's Account of the Life-and-Death Dramas of the New Medicine_ (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press), wherein he is said to advocate using the organs of anencephalic babies (HUMAN babies, it might be noted) for transplantation? Now, I don't necessarily disagree with that proposal, but I think his position might be of interest to his present political following. I also don't think much of the members of the bioethics community who let Peter Singer take so much heat for a similar position a few years back and yet have said nothing about Dr. Frist's position.
I wonder of Dr. Frist still holds such an opinion. Or, perhaps he decided that the medical evidence hasconvinced him that it would be much SAFER (in terms of HUMAN health now) to use organs from pigs or human-porcine (or other) chimeras instead. Hmmm? And of course that's the only ETHICAL position to take, because we all remember learning in medical school about when the SOUL entered the HUMAN zygote (but of course never the NONHUMAN zygote), don't we, DOCTOR Frist?

- by Dr. Ronnie Hawkins on May 25, 2005 at 7:12 PM | link

Dr. Hawkins, as I understand Dr. Frist's argument, it is that anencephalic infants are essentially dead. Accelerating the determination of death, to speak euphemistically, would bring a significant source of transplantable organs, is the suggestion.
I don't think this has much to do with Professor Singer's position.
I don't read the argument to have anything to do with whether the anencephalic infants have souls, or had souls prior to their "death" as redefined, or anything else along those lines. So why would the concept of "soul" come into play at all?

- by Thomas on May 26, 2005 at 4:08 AM | link