Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

He Blinded Me With Science
Townhall.com ^ | June 18, 2010 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 06/18/2010 4:58:51 AM PDT by Kaslin

A little over a year ago, President Barack Obama reversed George W. Bush's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

Just for the record, Bush didn't "ban" embryonic stem cell research, as so many critics claimed, and he didn't restrict non-embryonic stem cell research at all. He merely ruled that scientists shouldn't create any new embryonic stem cell lines, because creating life to destroy it is unethical and immoral.

This view, according to Obama (and Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, The New York Times, et al.), was unscientific. Hence, his administration would "make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology." This language was a carryover from the presidential campaign, when all of the Democratic candidates bemoaned the Neanderthalic "Republican war on science," to borrow a phrase from a popular liberal book. Hillary Clinton, for instance, promised that her administration would "restore scientific integrity by supporting the independent work of government scientists" and end the "open season on open inquiry."

For good or for ill, Obama beat Hillary for the nomination, but he carried the "liberals love science" torch nonetheless. At his inauguration, he pledged, "We will restore science to its rightful place."

Fast-forward to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The White House issued a blanket moratorium on deepwater oil drilling. Obama cited a report commissioned by the Interior Department that purported to recommend the ban.

"The recommendations contained in this report," declared the document, "have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering."

Except that was untrue. In fact, it was such a glaring lie that the seven engineers who peer-reviewed an earlier version of the document felt obliged to come forward to clear the air.

"The Secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct," wrote the scientists, "but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions."

The draft these experts saw was substantively different from the document that bore their names. The draft called for a moratorium on issuing new permits, not stopping existing drilling (a move many experts believe would be unsafe).

One of the experts, Benton Baugh, president of Radoil, told the Wall Street Journal, that if the draft had said to halt drilling, "we'd have said 'that's craziness.'"

Now, the experts are absolutely right that the White House is under no obligation to listen to them. Temporarily banning deepwater drilling might be the right call (I briefly thought it was myself). But it's a political call.

Needless to say, there is something ugly and hypocritical about glorifying the absolute authority of scientists and sanctimoniously preening about your bravery in "restoring" that authority -- and then ignoring the scientists when politically expedient.

But it is bordering on the grotesque to handpick scientists to give you an opinion and then lie about what they actually said, and implement a policy they don't endorse. (According to the Journal, the Interior Department has apologized to the scientists. But the administration publicly refuses to acknowledge it did anything wrong).

The most important point isn't about cheap politics and hypocrisy. It's about the fundamental misunderstanding of the role of science in policymaking.

Obama once told reporters "the promise that stem cells hold does not come from any particular ideology; it is the judgment of science, and we deserve a president who will put that judgment first."

Putting aside the fact that it now appears many scientists were wrong about the promise of stem cells (at least so far), this is morally deranged. If scientists discovered that experimentation on 5-year-old children showed huge promise to cure diseases or solve the energy crisis, we wouldn't say, "Oh, well, scientists say it's OK."

And, no, I'm not arguing that embryos and children are morally equivalent. I'm arguing that the answer to these questions lies in the realm of morality, philosophy and even theology more than it does in science. Scientists once believed that blacks "deserved" to be slaves and that women shouldn't work. Were politicians right to defer to the scientific consensus then? Scientists built the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. I wouldn't expect pacifists to defer uncritically to those scientists' moral judgments.

Scientists are technicians, not moral philosophers. While they can provide facts that inform good decision-making, they can't distill morality in a test tube. Politicians shouldn't abdicate to the guys in white coats their responsibilities to answer moral questions the white coats can't answer.

But you know what the white coats can do? They can tell us whether banning deepwater oil drilling will make us safer. Too bad Obama isn't listening.


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 06/18/2010 4:58:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Just for the record, Bush didn't "ban" embryonic stem cell research, as so many critics claimed, and he didn't restrict non-embryonic stem cell research at all. He merely ruled that scientists shouldn't create any new embryonic stem cell lines, because creating life to destroy it is unethical and immoral.

Just for the record to correct the correction, Bush didn't rule that scientists shouldn't create any new stem cell lines, he only said that Federal money couldn't pay for it.

2 posted on 06/18/2010 5:01:16 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Obama lies? You don’t say.


3 posted on 06/18/2010 5:03:25 AM PDT by Lost Highway (I don't know what the world may need but a V8 engines a good start for me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Obama once told reporters "the promise that stem cells hold does not come from any particular ideology; it is the judgment of science, and we deserve a president who will put that judgment first."

This, from an utterly ignorant commi-muzzie!

4 posted on 06/18/2010 5:04:58 AM PDT by IbJensen ((Ps 109.8): "Let his days be few; and let another take his position.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

That is correct


5 posted on 06/18/2010 5:05:49 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
“Hence, his administration would “make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

None of the current crop of DemonRAT politicians ever let “facts” get in the way of their fascist ideology.
They must be driven out of power and a stake pounded through their cardiac organ.

6 posted on 06/18/2010 5:06:57 AM PDT by bitterohiogunclinger (America held hostage - day 507)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
Bush didn't rule that scientists shouldn't create any new stem cell lines, he only said that Federal money couldn't pay for it.

Thank you!

That error bothered me through the entire article.

7 posted on 06/18/2010 5:07:20 AM PDT by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

” Just for the record to correct the correction, Bush didn’t rule that scientists shouldn’t create any new stem cell lines, he only said that Federal money couldn’t pay for it. “

Exactly... An odd lapse on the part of the usually accurate Mr. Goldberg...

On the other hand, the R&D sector is perhaps the most dependent on, and corrupted by, the Government Teat, of all sectors, so it’s probably a natural assumption that the removal of Federal Funding constitutes a ‘ban’.....


8 posted on 06/18/2010 5:09:17 AM PDT by Uncle Ike (Rope is cheap, and there are lots of trees...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
And, no, I'm not arguing that embryos and children are morally equivalent.

Why not argue this point? They are morally equivalent.

9 posted on 06/18/2010 5:12:49 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"We will restore science to its rightful place."

"... to further the Progressive agenda rather than allow companies to make obscene profits."

That's what he meant.

10 posted on 06/18/2010 5:13:16 AM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The former President Bush refused to allow FEDERAL FUNDING for embryonic stem cell research.

Good article Johan, but get all the facts please.


11 posted on 06/18/2010 5:14:48 AM PDT by Carley (For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Ike

Lots of freepers getting it right!!!


12 posted on 06/18/2010 5:16:02 AM PDT by Carley (For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
he only said that Federal money couldn't pay for it.

I was just going to add that, too. So many corrections to get to the actual facts ...

13 posted on 06/18/2010 5:17:18 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Beam me somewhere, Mr. Scott.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"restore scientific integrity by supporting the independent work of government scientists"

The same independent government scientists that propped up the global warming myth?

14 posted on 06/18/2010 5:36:52 AM PDT by capydick (''Life's tough.......it's even tougher if you're stupid.'')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitterohiogunclinger

Indeed they must be


15 posted on 06/18/2010 5:38:35 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Obama once told reporters "the promise that stem cells hold does not come from any particular ideology; it is the judgment of science, and we deserve a president who will put that judgment first."

As a scientist, I can safely say that it never was the "judgment of science" that [embryonic] stem cells hold the cure to every disease, if only we could do research on them. In fact, I could give a very detailed, science-based explanation of why I do not think that is at all true, and why "adult" stem cell research is the way to go.

Liberals have a long history of distorting science to fit their political agenda. When the science is against them, they label it as "conservative talking points" and outright reject it.

16 posted on 06/18/2010 5:50:03 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Why not argue this point? They are morally equivalent.

Cause it isn't the point he is trying to make. He doesn't want to get bogged down in that argument while trying to make the point that he is arguing.

17 posted on 06/18/2010 5:51:00 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Oops. I should have mentioned that even “adult” stem cell researched is over-hyped.


18 posted on 06/18/2010 5:51:07 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Understood.

But if I say "I'm not going to argue that it's wrong to torture kittens" -- doesn't it sound like MAYBE I just don't think it's wrong to torture kittens? I could defend myself by saying "I really came here to make a point about North Korea" but I think that would be an odd defense. Why did I bring up the topic if I don't want to talk about the topic?

I like Jonah. But when he says: ”And, no, I'm not arguing that embryos and children are morally equivalent.” It makes me think that he believes they are not equivalent. If he feels that way, then I disagree with him. If he doesn’t feel that way, then he expressed himself poorly.

19 posted on 06/18/2010 6:17:57 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
And, no, I'm not arguing that embryos and children are morally equivalent

Well Jonah you should be unless you believe the "science" that holds that embryos are some foreign life form that magically turn into children at some point in time.

20 posted on 06/18/2010 6:25:17 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

I had no trouble understanding him. It’s called “ceding the point.” He doesn’t want his main argument to get sidetracked by an objection on this matter. He’s leaving that argument for another day.


21 posted on 06/18/2010 6:25:45 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; blueyon; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; ...
Thanks Kaslin.
Just for the record, Bush didn't "ban" embryonic stem cell research, as so many critics claimed, and he didn't restrict non-embryonic stem cell research at all. He merely ruled that scientists shouldn't create any new embryonic stem cell lines, because creating life to destroy it is unethical and immoral. This view, according to Obama (and Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, The New York Times, et al.), was unscientific.
said the most idealogical candidates ever produced by the most idealogy-driven party in the history of the United States. [unpaid ad begins] Help make the Democratic Party part of history this fall.
22 posted on 06/18/2010 6:40:54 AM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
Just for the record to correct the correction...

Thanks.

23 posted on 06/18/2010 6:47:30 AM PDT by Fundamentally Fair (...but already it was impossible to say which was which.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Federal funding of non-defense research is unconstitutional, with or without W’s restrictions.


24 posted on 06/18/2010 9:01:34 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (Palin/Undecided 2012...make that Palin/Whoever She Picks...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Goobers in “Da Gooberment” have been editing scientist’s work, misquoting, “editing, ad nauseam ever since “Agenda Uber Alles” became acceptable to the electorate.

When the electorate demands that any agency doing such “scientific lying” have that division shut down and the offending Goobers jailed, then and ONLY THEN will such behavior stop.

As any educator can tell you, there must be consequences for asocial behavior.


25 posted on 06/18/2010 12:15:19 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson