“When small men begin to cast big shadows, the sun is about to set.”

Man, is that true right now. Time to shutter the windows and bring in the lawn furniture.

The Iraq War was put to a vote of the people’s elected representatives, not merely a executive order, and Congress, including a majority of Dems, voted for it.

well, congress voted to fund ESC research, and bush vetoed it, so i don’t get what you’re trying to argue here.

Science isn’t supposed to “know” anything about morality, there’s no point comparing the two. The debate over the ethics of stem-cell research is appropriate and productive, but O’Rourke is wrong to imply that science has failed in any way because it raises the possibility of stem-cell research, or because it hasn’t directly produced moral guidelines. That’s like criticizing a moral philosophy because it hasn’t discovered any natural laws.

I have a lot of respect for O’Rourke, so it’s sad to see him jump on the growing conservative anti-science bandwagon. There was no need for him to disparage science to make his argument that Obama’s new ESC policy is immoral.

RightOFLeft on March 16, 2009 at 6:18 PM

.
We expect scientists to understand morality, and history has shown that those that don’t, fail to produce good science as well.

I think that what the “ineffective” line of attack is really getting at is an objection that the proponents of embryonic stem cell research are often disingenuous for two reasons 1) ensuring continuation of gov’t funding for their unpromising line of research (you can see the same buncombe with the proponents of solar energy before Congress) and 2) a sublimated sympathy with abortion politics. In any case, put it to a vote, not an executive order. If people don’t want to be involved in embryo experimentation, they have the right to that resistance even if it is counterproductive in your opinion. Your argument about the Iraq War is not analogous. The Iraq War was put to a vote of the people’s elected representatives, not merely a executive order, and Congress, including a majority of Dems, voted for it. Put it to a vote and let the chips fall where they may and don’t pretend that the science of a scientific investigation is synonymous with the morality of that investigation. Indeed, down that path trod Mengele.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/03/16/lessons-from-the-yucca-mountain-nuclear-waste-storage-debate.html

The man is a joke and only his followers are funny.

Bush did NOT ban private stem cell research. He simply RESTRICTED FEDERAL funding of stem cell research to a pool of cells already in existence so that we would not get into the dubious business of recycling aborted babies.

Barack will get to parade his moral vanity here, but the decision will mean NOTHING to science. There will not be any stem cell therapies in our lifetime resulting from this decision. But a few politically connected research shops will get some gummint gravy courtesy of the US taxpayer.

I fear the future

We’d probably have telephones and light bulbs if President Rutherford B. Hayes (a Republican) had been willing to support the work of Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison. As you say, Mr. President, “When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed.” (Although the light bulbs would now have to be replaced by flickering, squiggly fluorescent devices anyway, to reverse global warming.)

Pwned

but this is not the point, because most opponents of ESC research are against it on a moral, rather than empirical basis.

Irregardless of the moral arguments the empirical arguments are still valid. ESC doesn’t work, get it through your head. Let private companies continue to donate money for research for something that works. i.e., ASC instead of the taxpayer subsidized welfare for lazy scientists.

Since (1.) has got nothing to do with “government funded” and (once more) everything to do with the ludicrous equation of “research” to “trial and error,” I’ll have to go with (2.), which is in fact what O’Rourke was discussing in the first place.

/s

Nice of you to continue to miss the point…

you have your point, i have mine. i think mine is more relevant.

which position would you like me to appreciate: 1. that research, and especially gov’t funded research, is futile because of the endless possibilities; or 2. that ESC research involves the unethical treatment of embryos? you would have more success with the latter, which i respect but do not share.

Obama spoke of “lifting people out of wheelchairs”…

Wait. I thought “The One” could simply say, “Take up thine wheel chair and walk”, and the lame would leap for joy!

So in order to demonstrate a flawed reasoning of Obama, PJ begins by stating that religion is the foundation of morality. I see.

radiofreevillage on March 16, 2009 at 6:27 PM

No, you don’t. Read it again. And refute the article with a real argument next time.

I’m greatly saddened to hear of P.J.’s cancer.

oldleprechaun on March 16, 2009 at 6:42 PM

Me too.

sesquipedalian on March 16, 2009 at 9:01 PM

Nice of you to continue to miss the point…

Much, if not “most”, research is conducted to establish the truth of a ground-breaking insight.

well, the possibility of using ESC to develop the means of curing a variety of diseases and conditions seems like a pretty ground-breaking insight. developing the insight into tangible achievements also involves a lot of experimenting. can you cite any major scientific breakthroughs that did not involve trial and error, or endurance in the face of possible failure (while sparing me the story of newton and the apple)?

sesquipedalian on March 16, 2009 at 8:30 PM

The assertion that “we all know that most research involves the basic concept of “trial and error” is categorically untrue, as are most statements that begin from the egregious falsehood “we all know.” Much, if not “most”, research is conducted to establish the truth of a ground-breaking insight.

As stated above, “the trouble with trial and error is that the more intelligence and imagination you possess, the more possibilities present themselves. Simply put, no intelligent person has enough time remaining in his or her life to discount every possible theory. At this point triage (in the form of Occam’s razor) becomes necessary to avoid analysis paralysis.”

This is indeed The Empirical Dilemma.

if there is really a bi-partisan majority of people supporting stem cell research it’s because they are as ignorant of the failures of embryonic stem cell research as your are.

but this is not the point, because most opponents of ESC research are against it on a moral, rather than empirical basis. we all know that most research involves the basic concept of “trial and error,” an intrinsic part of which is failure. success is never guaranteed, but that doesn’t mean that we should stop looking for the cure for cancer, diabetes, HIV, etc.

as far as the benefits of government-supported research: government can guide scientific research, setting goals that would not otherwise be given priority in an exclusively profit-oriented environment, but are nonetheless important leaps for mankind.

I’ll say it one mre time, government didn’t restrict research on ESC, the Bush administration said they wouldn’t fund it with taxpayer money. It has also been noted time and again that the adult variety actually produces results and is funded privately. You are either being intentionally ignorant, or lying.

celtnik on March 16, 2009 at 7:53 PM

Yes, I know. I think it should be funded.

I’ll say it one mre time, government didn’t restrict research on ESC, the Bush administration said they wouldn’t fund it with taxpayer money. It has also been noted time and again that the adult variety actually produces results and is funded privately. You are either being intentionally ignorant, or lying.

barkolounger on March 16, 2009 at 7:51 PM

I’m sure you think you have a point. Maybe it’s obscured by the spit on your monitor screen.

First of all, you seem to feel that Mengele’s “subjects” have/had more right to victimhood status than unborn babies. I disagree.

Secondly, you continue to ignore the fact that “science” is performed/justified by human beings, who are often (as Mengele) fatally flawed. The argument that there exists some perfectly subjective “science” distinct from the often-unexamined prejudices of its practitioners is absurd.

This is in fact the false contention that 0 and Algore make continually, and is the intellectual equivalent of “He’s got a Master’s degree. In Science.”

warbaby on March 16, 2009 at 7:38 PM

No, I think that embryos aren’t “unborn babies.” That’s your misunderstanding. The heart of this dispute is whether an embryo has the same status under ethics as a baby. I don’t believe it does. That’s a different argument, though.

Your second point is completely irrelevant, which is probably why I ignored it.