« Blind Submissions Revisited | Main | Justice Thomas' struggle to reconcile textualism & federalism in Wyeth »
Monday, March 09, 2009
The President's stem-cell-research statement
The Executive Order is here; the President's accompanying statement is here.
It is my well considered view that it is immoral to engage in (and I do not believe the government should fund) stem-cell research that involves the intentional destruction (or the creation-for-destruction) of human embryos. Many people -- including, I assume, most Prawfsblawg readers -- disagree with me on this. Fair enough. The point of this post is not so much to spell out and defend my views regarding the implications for scientific research of a commitment to human dignity and human equality, but to return to a matter that Paul, and others, have talked about, namely, the alleged wrongness of allowing (as Pres. Bush is often said to have allowed) "religious" concerns to trump "science."
In his statement, the President says that "as a person of faith" he believes "we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research -- and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly." Of course, few would disagree with the statement that "we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering." To say this is to say little. The question is, what does it mean to do so "responsibly"? Where will the limiting criteria -- and again, according to the President, research *will* be limited by "moral values" -- come from? "Science" does not supply them.
It seems that, in fact, we are not moving from a (bad) "politics and religion trumping science" regime to a (good) "responsible science" regime, and but from "science constrained by one set of moral commitments" to "science constrained by a different set of moral commitments." It would be good, I think, if everyone admitted this. We could then ask whether the moral commitments in the new regime are really the ones we hold, and really up to the job of preventing (what we profess to think are) horrible injustices.
More from the statement:
We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.
I agree with the President that cloning for human reproduction is "profoundly wrong", but I am not sure how "science" supplies this moral judgment (as opposed to uncovering the facts to which a moral principle might be applied). Why, exactly, is such cloning profoundly wrong? And is the judgment that such cloning is "profoundly wrong" and unworthy of "any society" more "scientific" than the claim that creating, exploiting, and destroying human embryos for research purposes is "profoundly wrong"? A researcher who regards reproductive cloning as a fascinating, and potentially welfare-increasing, research program might well wonder why she, but not her stem-cell-research colleagues, is being scolded in a statement that purports to aim at freeing science from politics so that it can "do its job."
Again, the point here is not to open a debate about whether embryo-destructive research are reproductive cloning are moral. It is only to suggest that we not pretend that what we are seeing is the removal of morality from debates about such procedures, that "science" requires or deserves such a removal, or that we would ever want such a removal.
Posted by Rick Garnett on March 9, 2009 at 03:28 PM in Rick Garnett | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef011168ce9d93970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The President's stem-cell-research statement:
Comments
It is notable, though, that this president, better than his predecessor, translates his - possibly religiously inspired - moral convictions into terms that can be the subject of public debate. It is possible to talk about "responsible" research with people from any background, whereas a claim that any human embryo is "living" and therefore untouchable (and presumably deserving of a grave stone in case of miscarriage) is a bit of a conversation stopper.
Posted by: Martinned | Mar 9, 2009 3:44:28 PM
Really? President Bush talked about "dignity"; that is a term that we use all the time. Again, it seems to me that people just disagreed with him about what "dignity" requires. But the translation into "dignity" talk seems just as successsful, and accessible, as President Obama's use of language like "profoundly wrong".
Posted by: Rick Garnett | Mar 9, 2009 3:54:33 PM
@Rick Garnett: Here is what President Bush said on August 9, 2001, when he signed the executive order that was now overturned. I think I have impartially chosen the key part of the press statement, but for those who want to check for themselves I found it at 2001 WL 896981, though I'm sure it must be available on the open internet somewhere as well.
"[Discussing the issue and the various opinions held.]
My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good -- to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And, like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.
I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world. And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.
(...)"
Posted by: Martinned | Mar 9, 2009 4:11:39 PM
Martinned -- thanks, that is helpful. At the same time, I don't think it is any less translated, or accessible, than Pres. Obama's statement, which referred to God, prayers, faith, etc. Statements like "I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator" and the need to avoid "devalu[ing] life" are not, it seems to me, in need of translation -- at least, not in any more need of it than Pres. Obama's statement about being "called" to alleviate suffering. The important question, it seems to me, is whether or not the policy in question is one that most people, for whatever reasons, think ought to be pursued.
Posted by: Rick Garnett | Mar 9, 2009 4:48:11 PM
I think, respectfully, that Rick is right on the point he makes in the comments: Bush's statement is more or less as accessible as Obama's statement. Perhaps not *quite* as accessible, but accessible nonetheless. That I happen to agree more with Obama than with Bush on the policy issues doesn't really alter that, in my view. It's true that Bush's statement is openly religious and that the turning point of his policy involves words, like "sacred gift," "devalue," and "respect," that are moral and religious in nature. But the same is true of Obama's statement; to the extent it does speak more in secular terms, those terms, like "responsibly," themselves arguably appeal to moral and/or religious values that are subject to debate and not easily accessible. Like RIck, although perhaps (I'm undecided) from a contrary viewpoint, I find his sentence on cloning for human reproduction conclusory and unsatisfying. I don't expect more, I should add -- issues like this seem to be firmly within the realm of "can't helps," although I'm not sure they should be. I do tend to think that Obama is better at bringing religion into the public realm in a way that allows productive debate, but I think that this is just because Obama (as a corporate entity; I assume both Obama and Bush make use of speechwriters) is a more supple and eloquent writer and speaker than Bush. Or maybe it's because I'm somewhat more comfortable with both his terms and his substantive conclusions. In any event, I do tend to think he has the edge over Bush on public discussion of religion; but to the extent that both presidents employ this mode of reasoning and communicating (and is there any other?), they both involve an element of the imperfectly accessible. As Rick knows, I disagree with Obama's stated view that religious views must be translated into accessible terms; it would appear that Obama does, too, however.
Posted by: Paul Horwitz | Mar 9, 2009 5:33:37 PM
I disagree with Obama's stated view that religious views must be translated into accessible terms; it would appear that Obama does, too, however.
What is the argument for this claim, namely, that Obama disagrees with his own view that religious arguments should be translated into arguments accessible "to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all"? Has he proposed some policy on religious grounds that is not also justified (or justifiable?) on non-religious grounds? Or is the claim here that all moral arguments are "religious" and so any justification Obama gives is religious and therefore not accessible? Or just that all moral arguments lack accessibility to some people?
I don't think it's at all obvious that Obama's view lacks accessibility, which, he has rightly pointed out, does not require that everyone agree with it. Obama has said that religious views should be translated into claims that are "subject to argument, and amenable to reason." And in his statement, he acknowledges that reasonable people disagree on this issue. So I'm not sure I see why Obama has contradicted his view on the role of religious reasons -- indeed, his recent actions and statements seem quite consistent with them.
Posted by: Micah Schwartzman | Mar 9, 2009 6:11:00 PM
The problem with short statements that denounce certain of these procedures as "wrong," injuring "dignity" interests, or immoral, whether on religious terms or not, is that they are wholly conclusory. To be accessible to contest the terms must be defined and an argument made. That is, the compound moral question presented by the factual scenario must be explained in terms of more basic and perhaps competing moral principles. Of course, these more basic principles are also conclusory, but people at least have experience with the consequences of those principles in other areas - and we have the opportunity to realize incompletely theorized agreements (see Sunstein). These basic definitions and arguments, however, are the whole ball of wax. The conclusory statements regarding morality did no work. Medical ethics discourse, at least as it is discussed in popular media, is rife with this problem.
Further, Rick is correct, of course, that science does not supply moral principles. But it does uncover facts that may alter the empirical landscape on which our internal moral codes operate - and thus be essentially determinative of what we label as right and wrong. For example, if science shows that using a certain kind of chemical in hairspray results in several thousand deaths a year, most would change their view concerning the morality of using at least that kind of hairspray. Science did most of the work in this example, with moral reasoning doing almost none.
Here, facts about embryos and stem cell research may indeed be critical for determining the reasonable judgments of many concerning the morality of such research. What if it could be determined that research formerly deemed immoral for its impact on potential/actual lives (depending on one's, in my mind insignificant though verbally weighty, choice of label) would save X lives and that Y embyros per year were lost across the world at early cellular stages in the normal course of human reproduction - and that Y and X are both much larger than the number of embryos that will be used? Now that, to be sure, would not be enough to change the minds of many - as it would not go to the act/omission and living/nonliving distinctions that some deem morally critical. But it may well, and reasonably so, make a big difference to others.
I am by no means making a scientific point here. I'm not really up to speed on the details of this kind of research. But science can tell people what is happening and what the consequences of actions are. In this way, science can indeed "eliminate," for many, a difficult moral chocie by converting it into a much, much easier one.
Posted by: Christian Turner | Mar 9, 2009 7:23:23 PM
Christian -- I don't think we disagree about the relevance of science, insofar as it helps to establish what are the facts on the ground, to practical reasoning and moral judgments. My point is just that there are "ought" principles / claims that do, as you put it, a lot of the "work" in these debates, and that science does not supply these principles. So, you are right that science (or, more generally, a better knowledge of the facts) can often make moral decisions "easier", but not by supplying the moral rule or standard to be applied. Do you agree? Best, R
Posted by: Rick Garnett | Mar 9, 2009 7:46:21 PM
Thanks Rick - I do indeed agree, and it seems incontrovertible, that science cannot tell us directly what we "ought" to do. Forgetting that is dangerous, as moral decisionmaking may then be delegated to technocrats given power for their scientific expertise but enabled, thereby, to enact their own moral code.
I put "eliminate," above, in scare quotes for precisely this reason - for no decision concerning ought is ever answered completely by seeing more clearly what is. (I'm no philosophy PhD, but even I recognize that this is a very old idea.) My points were only (a) that declaring that a certain procedure is "immoral," whether with that word or synonyms, also supplies no real moral principle just a bare conclusion (I don't think we disagree on this) and (b) that in many cases greater empirical understanding can transform a difficult moral question into a very easy one - one in which the moral principle to which one must resort to determine "ought" is obvious / not subject to significant contest / instinctive / etc.
I didn't mean to suggest that this necessarily contradicted anything in your post, but it does caution that your some of your points, such as maybe your last sentence, could be taken too far. It may well be, for example, that for many people a greater empirical understanding of this research would present a trivially easy moral question. That's not to say that it's not reasonable to think otherwise or that empirical evidence will transform the question for everyone. It's just that science might well be *much more important* in determining ought than moral philosophy in many cases - not because it does so alone, but because of its ability to reframe moral questions.
Again, I don't think we disagree on this, and I may be stating what is perfectly obvious to everyone else. But I thought it was worth trying to work this out - or at least doing so helps me think about the issue.
Posted by: Christian Turner | Mar 9, 2009 8:13:18 PM
"It seems that, in fact, we are not moving from a (bad) "politics and religion trumping science" regime to a (good) "responsible science" regime, and but from "science constrained by one set of moral commitments" to "science constrained by a different set of moral commitments.""
I agree with the latter part of the statement. The problem is that the nature and degree of constraint under the previous administration was such as to render it also "politics and religion trumping science." That fact goes far beyond its position on stem cells, of course, to examples to numerous to list here. As a scientist, I'm quite pleased to see this move, if only as a signal (albeit one of several) of how this administration will interact with science.
(Of course, how "responsible" -- their word -- the current regime is remains to be seen; but I'm willing to give them a chance...).
Posted by: C. Budler | Mar 9, 2009 8:27:33 PM
Oops - one more thing. I didn't mean to be snarky when I said that "even I recognize[d] that [the is-ought distinction] is a very old idea." I just wanted to point out, what is again obvious, that I wasn't saying anything original in that regard. Reading through my comment, I was worried it might come off as a criticism of your post, which it's not at all. As I understand it, you use the distinction to make a more complex point - that I'm only asking be made a bit more contingent.
Posted by: Christian Turner | Mar 9, 2009 8:28:20 PM
Micah, a very thoughtful comment as always, one that (also as always) makes me check my assumptions. I'm not sure I have a terribly strong response -- just a general sense that Obama's translation requirement is fairly onerous as it is stated in his now-classic religion-and-politics speech (and the reprinting of it in Audacity of Hope), but that in practice he is far more comfortable than the rule would suggest putting things in religious terms without making a serious attempt to translate it into accessible terms. I agree that moral terms are not necessarily religious ones, and in common parlance may be treated as more accessible than religious terms; but I do think they are often not much more accessible than religious terms in the final analysis. Also, I think there is a difference between demanding that arguments be made in accessible terms, which I took to be what Obama was originally saying, and saying only that arguments must be capable of being justified in accessible terms, which I take to be your friendly amendment to his argument.
Posted by: Paul Horwitz | Mar 10, 2009 10:33:21 AM
I wonder what Obama's real view is of Rick's critique, which I've seen several others make in the last day or two. Given Christian's reminder that this is an old idea, it seems that Obama ought to understand that it is bogus to claim that this is about "science over ideology," rather than a policy question outside the bounds of science.
But if he knows that it's bogus, then he's not only lying, but he's doing it about something fundamental. That bothers me.
On the other hand, if he somehow really believes what he's saying, he's not as bright as he's cracked up to be.
If I had to bet, I'd pick dishonest over stupid, but it's disappointing either way. If you've got the upper hand, why take this route?
Posted by: anonner | Mar 11, 2009 4:26:10 PM
If I had to bet, I'd pick dishonest over stupid, but it's disappointing either way. If you've got the upper hand, why take this route?
Because it works? The politician's job isn't simply to decide on policy, but most importantly to sell it to his constituents. No politician ever made friends in the US by saying (orthodox) christianity is wrong. So this is the politically more palatable way to frame it.
Posted by: Martinned | Mar 12, 2009 12:39:53 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
