“We all knew [President] Obama was going to reverse [former President George W.] Bush’s policy on federal embryonic stemcell research, and now he’s done so,” Rod Dreher writes in a blog at beliefnet.com.
“In his remarks, he indicated that he was turning back what he characterized as the Bush administration’s attempts to let politics interfere with science. The reporting I’ve seen or heard (on NPR) [March 9] runs along the lines of this subhed in the Washington Post’s online version of the story: ‘Memo to Keep Politics Out of Government Science Accompanies Stem Cell Action.’
“What rot. Look, I strongly disagree with what Obama did [ . . .], because I find it to be gravely immoral (and unnecessary — look at all the scientific advances on stem-cell research that does not require taxpayer-funded extermination of human life). Others believe he did the right thing, and Bush’s action was immoral. Fine,” Mr. Dreher said.
“What chaps my bottom is the pretense that Obama and the [proembryonic stem-cell research] folks have the morally neutral position. They don’t. They are not keeping politics (or morality) out of science; they are only applying their own political and moral values to the practice of science. It’s called applied bioethics,” Mr. Dreher said.
“Beware people who try to claim that science is, and should be, morally neutral. Whenever policymakers, both in government and in the medical field, decide that this practice will be permitted, but that won’t be, they are engaged in imposing moral values on science. If you believe science should not be subject to the restraints of morality, but only to itself, you had better make your apologies to Dr. Mengele.”
An administration above criticism? “President Obama’s team, unlike Bush’s team, demonstrates a thinness of skin that shocks me,” writes Jim Cramer of CNBC’s “Mad Money.”