There is an interesting post by Bradford at Telic Thoughts entitled A Public Policy Scientific Consensus? Bradford ends the post by asking a highly relevant question:
…what policies would one advocate based exclusively on consideration of one’s scientific credentials?
The first commenter, Tom Gilson, made an outstanding observation using embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) as an example to drive home his point.
Here’s one high-profile current example (the same principle extends to other science-related issues): “Science says we should support saving lives through embryonic stem cell research.”
The value statement buried in there is that already-born humans are of greater worth or value than not-yet-born humans. People may disagree on whether that’s true or not, but their disagreement is not based in science.
One way to test that is by offering a response based in religion. “The Bible shows us that human life has the highest dignity and worth, right from the start, and we believe that applies from zygote to blastocyst to embryo and on until the end; and the Bible says it is wrong to sacrifice the lives of the helpless innocent.”
Set aside for a moment whether that belief is right or wrong. Can it be countered (or supported) scientifically? If not, then how can anyone think ESCR policy decisions are science decisions? Sure, science informs the decision: Does ESCR have life-saving potential? What are its financial costs? What are the alternatives? And so on. These things enter into the moral balance, certainly. But it’s an information/advisement role, as you said. Science’s role does not–indeed, cannot–extend to making policy decisions. (emphasis mine)
That reminded me of a statistic I heard of comparing the number of treatments using adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells. The score is shocking: 73 to 0 in favour of adult stem cell treatment. It’s not even close! I don’t have the funding numbers in front of me, but I bet that ESCR funding is greater than that of Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR), which would make the score even more lopsided. Using a football analogy, this would be like the University of Minnesota-Morris constantly whupping the likes of Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, USC, Ohio State, (well, you get the point).
Why bring up the score? Referring to the emphasised portion of Tom’s comment, science has obviously come up with viable alternatives to ESCR. Combine that with a nasty habit of embryonic stem cells forming tumours, it seems that ESCR being lobbied as a potential miracle cure is not from a purely scientific standpoint. There has to be something else supporting ESCR.
This is not to say that ESCR has no scientifc value nor should the government mandate all ESCR to cease. The point is that there is something more than science behind lobbying for more ESCR funding. If science is to advise on public policy, it should recommend (without argument) that ASCR is the more promising avenue, not ESCR.
Recent Comments