Wired: Bush Stem Cell Policy NOT Anti-Science

Having spent the last few years in a graduate engineering & applied science program, I’ve heard no shortage of criticism directed at the Bush administration’s science policies. And for good reason, if you ask me.

But this short article from WIRED suggests that the Bush administration’s stem cell policy, right or wrong, should not be labeled “anti-science”. Before you get all huffy, the author of the article seems to have disagreed, as I did, with the Bush policy. He suggests, however, that it is dangerous to dismiss Bush’s decision as “anti-science” because morality is necessarily a part of responsbile science policy.

If Bush’s stem cell policy was based on a moral decision, then it was legitimate, even if it was the wrong decision. Other Bush decisions, I might add, may not hold up to such scrutiny (such as any number of environmental policies).

I can understand if some people disagree with this assessment. Morality and religion, afterall, are intimately connected, and some would say Bush was injecting religion or politics into science. They may have a point. But if you are willing to except moral objections in science, some of those morals will undoubtedly be grounded in a religious idealology. That doesn’t make them any less valid.

It should go without saying, but moral restraints on science are a good thing. The WIRED article points to the Nuremburg Code, which established principles for human experimentation, as an example.

There is a real danger, then, in labeling this policy as anti-science, because doing so could weaken the perception that moral decisions belong in science.

Read the WIRED article for more.