In today’s Washington Post there is a very interesting op-ed on stem cell science and policy by Ruth R. Faden and John D. Gearhart, both professors at Johns Hopkins.

They write:

“The controversy about stem cells, and the choice between Kerry and Bush on stem cell policy, is not about science; it really is about values — moral values. The science is clear. The only way to ensure that we realize the promise of stem cell research as quickly as possible is to permit federal funding to be used to create new embryonic stem cell lines and to support research with new lines. President Bush’s values are also clear. He believes that the destruction of embryos can never be morally justified, no matter how much human suffering might be alleviated, even if the embryos are only still a clump of cells not visible to the human eye and even if the embryos will be destroyed in any event in fertility clinics where they are no longer needed. We believe that most Americans have different moral values from the president’s.”

The latter assertion would seem highly questionable, at least according to recent polls. According to a July 2004 survey by the Gallup organization, when asked if John Kerry or George Bush “Shares your values” the public split 47% to 46% respectively. But it is also clear that public opinion on stem cells depends upon how the issue is framed. According to Matthew Nisbet of Ohio State:

“For [stem cell] funding advocates, the [recent poll] results clearly show that if they can make overwhelmingly salient in media coverage the connections between research and cures, the public is likely to be swayed… Still, in contrast, other commissioned polls indicate that opponents of funding will do best by linking stem-cell research to abortion and make it into a moral and religious issue. In the end, it comes down to a battle to frame media coverage and campaign messages.”

Hence the incentives for John Kerry are to make a clear connection between the research and possible cures and for George Bush it is to link the research to the abortion issue. It seems to me that on stem cells there is ample evidence that both sides have misused science for political gain.

For the Kerry folks there is a political benefit to exaggerate (or “mischaracterize” using our previously discussed misuse typology) the scientific benefits of stem cell research. For Bush folks there is a political benefit to exaggerate (or “mischaracterize”) the significance of his August 2001 decision, both in terms of the benefits (and numbers) of stem cells available for research as well as the benefits of alternative research techniques (e.g., with adult stem cells) that would make embryonic stem cells unnecessary.

As Faden and Gearhart observe, “Translating science into political symbols and slogans comes at a price.” While I agree with Faden and Gearhart that the stem cell issue is about moral values, once advocates from both sides use science to advance those moral values, the issue becomes a matter of science policy and, in the end, about science as well. As much as we may like to make a distinction, in practice separating science from values just doesn’t work.

PS. For an addition perspective on understanding science in the stem cell debate see this op-ed of mine published in the Rocky Mountain News last month.