Uranium Enrichment and Stem Cells
March 9th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Yesterday’s New York Times had an interesting article on uranium enrichment research in Iran. It begins as follows:
There are times when even a little bit of research can be a bad thing, especially if it centers on Iran and the bomb. On Tuesday, a wide range of nuclear scientists and analysts faulted as dangerous Moscow’s tentative proposal to let Tehran do small amounts of research on uranium enrichment, with some comparing it to being a little bit pregnant. “After a while, you tend to wind up having a baby,” said Peter D. Zimmerman, a professor of science and security in the war studies department of King’s College, London. “I do not believe the Iranians should have any access to enrichment technology until they prove to be a more responsible partner than they’ve been so far.” The Iranians have strenuously objected to such characterizations, saying the West wants to deprive them of atomic knowledge and expertise that they have a right to acquire for a peaceful program of nuclear power. They see it as nothing less than a devious plot by outside powers to keep their country from modernizing. In an interview with Al Arabiya television last month, for example, Ali Larijani, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, said, “The problem is that they look at the Islamic nations as being inferior, that we should not have modern technology, and it is enough for us to produce tomato paste and mineral water.”
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 in the follow ways:
1. A group in society – the researchers — wants to conduct research that has potential positive benefits to outcomes that they value.
2. Another group in society – the restricters — 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. In both cases the restricters have the upper hand from a political perspective.
5. In both cases the researchers are seeking ways around the research restrictions.
6. The researchers assert that this is about the right to conduct research.
7. The researchers accuse their opponents as being morally challenged.
8. 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? I’m interested in reactions.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:25 am
Roger,
I think your argument is strong. I have two comments.
In reference to #7.
Restrictors also accuse their opponents of being morally challenged (lacking in moral responsibility).
In reference to #3.
I agree that “Both groups seek to impose their values on the other.” However, it is not intuitively obvious (at least in the case of uranium enrichment) that “their goals are in direct conflict.” It is not clear what the underlying goals are for either party. For restrictors: to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation; to keep Iran from modernizing; and/or something else. For the researchers: to develop an energy source; develop nuclear weapons, develop knowledge, and/or something else.
It seems to me that both groups cannot succeed in achieving their desired outcome because their promoted alternatives are ridged and in direct conflict. They are possibly rigid, in part, because both groups are unsure of the other’s true intentions/goals, and are trying to insulate against the worst case scenario. This does not detract from your argument that in both cases the decision to conduct research is 100% political. It just leaves room for the possibility that their underlying goals are not fundamentally incompatible, and that an amicable solution is possible.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Hi Roger,
Some off-the-cuff comments:
“1. A group in society – the researchers — wants to conduct research that has potential positive benefits to outcomes that they value.”
The researchers in this case being Iranian scientists directed by their government to develop a “Shiite/Persian bomb.”
“2. Another group in society – the restricters — wants to restrict that research because of its potential negative impacts with respect to outcomes that they value.”
The restricters being those who don’t want to see nuclear bombs dropped/detonated in one or more cities in Israel, Sunni Arab Iraq, or Kurdistan (what virtually all Kurdish bloggers seem to refer to where they live).
Based on those two specifics, I don’t think the parallel to stem cells is terribly close. (Although one might say that Iranians–or at least some Iranian leaders–might view Israelis as not terribly different from embryonic stem cells.)
P.S. I’m almost certain Iran can buy (or at least lease) uranium sufficiently enriched for operating commercial reactors from Russia. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) So it’s not as though Iran has to enrich the uranium itself, just to be able to run commercial reactors. (Again, correct me if I’m wrong.)
http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/nuke_industry/waste_imports/29396.html
Mark
March 9th, 2006 at 11:38 am
“Did I miss anything?”
Yes, the Iranians are the world’s leading state sponsors of terrorism. They are most assuredly lying about their intentions, which are to acquire nuclear weapons and use them to terrorize other nations.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:52 am
Somewhat in line with other commenters, but I think more precisely to the point: there are at least two significant disanalogies between stem-cell research restriction and constraints on Iranian nuclear research.
The first is that the objection to stem cells is purely ideological – some people have a religious commitment that leads them to oppose that work, and they believe everyone else should abide by their religious beliefs so that they are not offended. The objection to nuclear research is based on the real threat of actual physical harm to third parties (including the objectors) from the development of weapons – if this research goes bad, people will not merely be offended, they will die. You are right that there is a conflict of values in both cases, but I think it is reasonable to make a distinctiion between harms that unmistakably result from overt physical force and harms that exist only in the minds of the offended because they choose to perceive themselves as harmed.
Second, ignoring the nonsense about “leading state sponsor of terrorism”, Robert is still correct that it would be naive to assume that the Iranian research program is what it purports to be. Thus, the argument is being conducted on disingenuous grounds, unlike that over stem cell research. Stem cell researchers are in fact doing exactly what they say they are doing, and their opponents do not deny this – the debate is over whether that is a good thing. The Iranian researchers are very likely doing something different from (or more extensive than) what they claim they are doing, but are citing as justification a supposed moral right to pursue their ostensible purposes, rather than their likely actual purposes; for their opponents to take that at face value would be a mistake, and so the argument is partly over what is actually going on, as well as whether that (whatever it is) would be a good thing.
Finally, as a merely rhetorical point, I’m not sure that it’s a good idea to defend stem-cell research on the grounds that it’s “just like Iranian nuclear development research”! Hardly reassuring.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:46 am
I think you would find Lyotard’s “The Differend” particularly helpful in providing a general vocabulary for describing issues such as #s 3 and 4, as well as providing some support for your tendency to see this as a “100% political” issue.
Some possible points of disanalogy:
In the case of stem cell research in the U.S., the majority of the public supports stem cell research: the restricters are the minority. The restricters are also at least considering offers to subsidize alternatives to embryonic stem cell research, e.g., in Maryland, where some restricters want to write preferences for researchers on adult stem cells into whatever law they may pass allowing state funding for stem cell research.
In the case of nuclear research in Iran, the majority of the public (in this case, the global community) fails to support Iranian nuclear research: the restricters are the majority. Most of the restricters are not even considering subsidizing alternatives to nuclear energy in Iran, e.g., the U.S. negative reaction to the natural gas pipeline that would have run through Iran.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Some replies to the comments-
Thanks!
David- Yes, good additions.
Kevin- Opponents of stem cell research would not agree that their opposition is purely ideological. Similarly, I’d bet that some Iranians truly believe that opposition to their nuclear research is purely ideological.
Brit- Any data on global public opinion on Iran’s nuclear research?
March 10th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Roger -
I’m not aware of the existence of any global opinion polls on Iran’s nuclear research program. I’m basing my claim that the restricters are the majority in the case of Iran’s nuclear ambitions on such things as the fact that 27 of 35 member nations of the IAEA board (including even Russia and China) voted to refer Iran to the UN Security Council.
This also points to another disanalogy between stem cells and nuclear research: In the case of stem cells, it’s largely a political issue within the U.S., whereas in the case of Iran’s nuclear research, it’s a case of international relations. I don’t at all disagree that there’s a political element in both cases, or even that the political element in both cases overshadows the scientific. However, to say that in both cases the decisions involved are “100% political” seems to overlook some important differences.
Britt
March 10th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Brit-
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!
March 10th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Roger
“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.
March 10th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Roger-
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
March 10th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Benny- Yes! You get it, but you miss my point. This is about moral judgments, about politics. Here in the US we are told that stem cell politics represent a “war on science” — they don’t they represent politics moral judgments.
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.
March 10th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Benny- I see that I made a typographical mess of that response. Let me try again — the point is simple: for those in the US who argue that SCIENCE compels public support for stem cell research, would they also agree that SCIENCE compels support for nuclear research in Iraq? My point is that it is not about what science does or does not compel.
And I do believe that once someone invokes a Nazi analogy the debate is offically over
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
March 10th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
“Similarly, I’d bet that some Iranians truly believe that opposition to their nuclear research is purely ideological.”
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!!!
March 10th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Roger Pielke Jr writes, “This is about moral judgments, about politics. Here in the US we are told that stem cell politics represent a “war on science” — they don’t they represent politics moral judgments.”
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.
March 11th, 2006 at 5:45 am
Roger
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.
March 11th, 2006 at 5:55 am
Benny- Thanks. I think I understand completely what you are saying, and the difference in the moral issues that you have highlighted (and recognizing that there are surely many people who will hald very different views on both issues) is exactly the one I have sought to highlight with the analogy.
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.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:01 am
“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.”
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”).