Well, I think science “justifies” stem cell research…but only because I think that a fertilized human egg a few days old does not want, need, or deserve human rights…i.e., the same reason I think that water pollution research “justifies” using daphnia in polluted waters, even though the daphnia may die. (Sooner than they otherwise would…which is pretty soon.)

http://www.amnh.org/nationalcenter/youngnaturalistawards/2002/mauree.html

(Actually, I really think that the daphnia deserve MORE consideration than the 5-day-old fertilized embryos! I’ve never conducted water pollution research with daphnia, but I’d have MORE trouble doing that, than research on 5-day-old embryos.)

And I don’t think “science” justifies Iranian scientists to experiment with uranium enrichment, because I’m virtually certain that such work is intended to help to develop nuclear weapons…and because Iran’s current president has very publicly advocated genocide. (I don’t see how “wiping Israel off the map” can be interpreted any other way.)

But count me in violent agreement with your later clarification that those who say that advocates of restricting/prohibiting stem cell research are conducting a “war on science” are completely wrong. It’s entirely a moral issue (i.e., competing views of what is “the moral thing to do”).

Indeed, I am not surprised to see comments in response highlighting the differences in political and moral context between the two cases, as these are the key differences.

I am surprised that no one who advocates stem cell research in the US on the basis of “science” has responded to clarify why “science” justifies that course of action but it does not justify Iranians conducting their research.

Again, my point is that neither decision is based on science, but politics. You and I seem to be in violent agreement on this point.

I think you invoke Godwin’s Law inappropriately. I’ve raised the incompatible research agenda of Nazi scientists and that of their anti-fascist opponents not because I wanted to obstruct the debate or as a crass appeal to emotion. In fact, I could have equally raised the famous conflict between nuclear scientists in Nazi Germany and those in the Free World who supported and actively worked on the construction of an atomic bomb to make my point.

The purpose of my contribution was to draw attention to what I consider to be a faulty analogy of two sets of issues or circumstances that have very little in common. I object to your assertion that “the international issue of nuclear research in Iran is in my mind exactly analogous to the debate at the federal level over stem cell research in the United States” because the analogy is fallacious.

One debate (about stem cell research in the US) is a normal political controversy conducted in an open society under ordinary, democratic procedures. The other (about nuclear research in Iran) is about the belligerent ambitions of a totalitarian and genocidal government that, in flouting of international law, is bent on obtaining the technological means for mass murder.

Yes, the debate is also about science and research. But it is in the nature of false analogies that the parallels are eclipsed by the dissimilarities.

Oh! I wondered what in the world you were getting at!

P.S. My off-the-cuff comments had a “spin” (or at least point of view) to which I’ll freely admit:

1) If I had the technical capability, I would think absolutely nothing about sticking a needle into and harvesting stem cells (killing) 1000’s of 5-day-old fertilized embryos before breakfast…if I thought the results would help born people, whereas

2) If I was responsible–even completely accidentally–for the death of even one baby (or child or grownup) it would haunt me for the rest of my life.

Now, I freely acknowledge that there are some people who think that my opinion regarding #1 makes me a monster. I acknowledge that as a legitimate moral opinion. But I completely disagree with it.

P.P.S. I also freely admit that there are probably plenty of Iranians (even a majority) who think their scientists should be able to enrich uranium…or even develop a bomb. I acknowledge THAT as a legitimate moral opinion. But at the same time, I would not mind a bit if Israel did the same thing to Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant that they did to Iraq’s Osirak nculear plant. (And I would support the U.S. government doing it…even though under anything but the most extraordinary circumstances…like this…I would oppose it.

I’ll bet that most don’t. Most are also worried about being invaded or at least bombed in to the stone age. The Iranian media has been telling its people about the threat from the US for a long time. Just listen to the IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcast network–links available from http://www.publicradiofan.com)

The US did overthrow a very popular democratic government and install the Shah, it invaded two neighbors, supported Iran’s enemy in a long and bloody war, and for some time has been engaged in some very threatening rhetoric. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. We haven’t herd too much about North Korea recently.

And
I DO NOT want nuclear weapons in the Hands of the Iranians either!!!

And I do believe that once someone invokes a Nazi analogy the debate is offically over

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

And as far as my own politics, I have no objections to stem cell research, and I don’t want nuclear weapons in the ahnds of the Iranians.

I’m not sure whether it is I who am confusing things, or whether things are just complicated.

In the case of stem cells, although it’s “conceivable that a majority of elected officials in Congress would oppose stem cell research,” opinion polls actually show that 58% of Americans favor stem cell research. But even confining ourselves to the stem cell issue within the U.S., things are complicated — much of the debate has moved from the Federal to the state level. The point is that the situation with stem cells is disanalogous with Iranian nuclear research in terms of politics.

Of course, what counts as “political” depends on how we define it. If we define the “political” as having to do with who has the power to decide who gets to perform what research, then a vast array of things would fall under the umbrella of the political. But would you really want to say that NSF proposal review panels are political in EXACTLY the same way as the UN Security Council or the U.S. Congress or the Maryland General Assembly, or even that these three are political in EXACTLY the same way?

The more interesting question, it seems to me, is who ought to have the authority (not the power) to decide who gets to perform what research. The U.S. has yet to rule out military action to prevent Iran’s nuclear ambitions — but that the U.S. has the military power to prevent (or greatly hinder) Iran from conducting nuclear research doesn’t mean that it has the authority to do so.

Best,
Britt

“Did I miss anything?”

How about this scientific research (something that the Iranian President claims never occurred in the first place)
http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/html/eng/historia_KL/eksperymenty_ok.html

1. A group in society – the Nazis — wants to conduct research that has potential positive benefits to outcomes that they value.

2. Another group in society – the anti-Nazis — wants to restrict that research because of its potential negative impacts with respect to outcomes that they value.

3. Both groups seek to impose their values on the other, but both cannot succeed at the same time as their goals are in direct conflict.

4. The Nazis assert that this is about the right to conduct research.

5. The Nazis accuse their opponents as being morally challenged.

6. In both cases the decision to conduct the research or not is 100% political.

These debates are about what research gets to be conducted, by whom, and how paid for. “Did I miss anything?”

Yes, your own moral judgement.

Thanks. I do think you are confusing things here when you talk about majority opinion. In the US it is conceivable that a majority of elected officials in Congress would oppose stem cell research. Though I’m not sure that this is relevant to my more general point.

More on topic, when I say 100% political I do mean it is all about power — the power to decide who gets to perform what research. Thanks!