Obama’s address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the “false choice between sound science and moral values.” Yet, exactly 2 minutes and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open the door to the “use of cloning for human reproduction.”
Does he not think that a cloned human would be of extraordinary scientific interest? And yet he banned it.
Is he so obtuse as not to see that he had just made a choice of ethics over science? Yet, unlike Bush, who painstakingly explained the balance of ethical and scientific goods he was trying to achieve, Obama did not even pretend to make the case why some practices are morally permissible and others not.
This is not just intellectual laziness. It is the moral arrogance of a man who continuously dismisses his critics as ideological while he is guided exclusively by pragmatism (in economics, social policy, foreign policy) and science in medical ethics.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The “greatest good” for the greatest number.
Wethal on March 13, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Dr. K slices and dices…moral arrogance and intellectually lazy….ahem!
d1carter on March 13, 2009 at 1:35 PM
we cannot let Obama’s (backwards, I think) stance on human cloning stand in the way of science.
vinman on March 13, 2009 at 1:35 PM
The most amazing thing is reading comments at the Post. The people on there are the most stupid group of individuals I’ve come across on a major newspaper comments site. They don’t even think about what the writer is saying and just go straight for the ideological rhetorical comeback.
It’s like being on Daily Kos or something.
Dumb F&&ks.
Dritanian on March 13, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Well-written piece. Definitely worth reading the entire thing.
I would keep the line where President Bush put it, but I certainly respect Krauthammer’s thoughtful arguments.
Y-not on March 13, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Show me any professional responsibility he has accepted. This is the man who votes “present” after all. abdicating his professional responsibilities is his way of life.
TheBigOldDog on March 13, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I wonder if theres a balance to strike here. Democrats agree to ban embryonic if Republicans agree to vastly increase federal funding for adult stem cell research.
ernesto on March 13, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Four-year free rides for Palestinians (the ones who voted genocidal Muslim Brotherhood created HAMAS into power) at US universities paid for with your tax dollars:
SUICIDE SCHOLARS?
Beagle on March 13, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Obama’s arrogance goes far beyond the stem cell issue. BO approaches everything in the same way. Substitute ’stem cells’ for ’signing statements’ for ‘rendition’ for…. fill-in-the-blank.
All the same.
BierManVA on March 13, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Behold the LIGHTHINKER! behold the great pretender.
Dusty on March 13, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Y-not on March 13, 2009 at 1:37 PM
DITTO!
NebCon on March 13, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Krauthammer is so right I want to kiss him.
MayBee on March 13, 2009 at 1:44 PM
It’s not on the table, and it won’t be.
The Dems are pushing embryonic, and want it funded regardless of the scientific value of adult stem cell applications.
cs89 on March 13, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Once again, I wish Krauthammer had not, prior to the election, emphasized time and again that he thought Obama had a first-class intellect and temperament.
It wasn’t helpful.
BigD on March 13, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Oh, please. Bush was pandering to his base, just as Obama is. Morality has nothing to do with either president’s stance.
When embryos are created for invitro fertilization, many are created with the knowledge that few of them will survive. Right-to-lifers should be against invitro fertilization too.
B26354 on March 13, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Do Democrats really need Republican support to accomplish? It seems to me they have the votes to increase the NIH and NSF budgets already.
Y-not on March 13, 2009 at 1:53 PM
This one is.
What’s your point?
Y-not on March 13, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Yes, but at least he knew it would be damaging if he had gone to the bill signing.
I read his bio. I knew about his medical training, but I hadn’t realized that he worked for Mondale. Interesting background.
Y-not on March 13, 2009 at 1:56 PM
This is all about promoting abortion.
“Suzie, think of the good that might come from your abortion. We could use stem cells from your fetus to cure Michael J. Fox of Alzheimer’s.”
It’s just another “in favor of” argument for abortion that Planned Parenthood can use.
Kind of like, “Hey, think of all the good you could do for poor people with the 30 pieces of silver we’re giving you to rat out Jesus.”
otcconan on March 13, 2009 at 1:56 PM
That’s precisely why pro-lifers are opposed to it.
Iblis on March 13, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Um…I am. And, I am not even Catholic, but, the catholic church has long opposed it.
Mommypundit on March 13, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Spot on on the arrogance. I’d really seriously been trying to give Obama the benefit of the doubt after he was elected, since we’re stuck with him, but he is an arrogant little turd.
I listened to his statements the day he made that new policy, and I found them deeply offensive, for the reasons Dr K lays out here. He dismissed Bush’s nuanced handling of the moral issues as if the previous administration was composed of superstitious Flat Earthers.
I was re-watching you-tubes of Bush speaking to the troops yesterday. I miss him more and more. We are not in good hands, and we’re going to have to deal with it as best we can.
juliesa on March 13, 2009 at 1:59 PM
I wouldn’t say Krauthammer “went nuclear.” Or is that the correct term for someone who points out Osama Obama’s vapidity, moral weaknesses and hypocrisy?
Krauthammer is a good, decent and thoughtful man. The child-president is none of those things.
End of story.
MrScribbler on March 13, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Well as someone who voted Obama, I wish it were. I’d defend embryonic research on its merits, but if it were opposed on its face by a significant political bloc, its better to try and turn it into a win/win that try and fight with it.
No, they dont. That shouldnt come in the way of a genuine compromise. Democrats would have to accept they do not get to set the agenda on ethical limits, republicans would have to accept there are some things the government should spend money on, like research. Too bad the congressional leadership (who will do much more damage on their own than Obama would had he been given a congress with brains) plays the worst kind of political games.
ernesto on March 13, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Yeah, I watched the comparison of Bush’s interactions with the troops and Obama’s recent visit to Camp Lejeune. It was so sobering.
Y-not on March 13, 2009 at 2:11 PM
ernesto,
Are you saying that Pelosi and Reid can’t pass a budget? Didn’t they just pass one? I really think that if Obama wanted to propose another round of NIH budget increases, he would have the votes to do it.
(Whether that’s advisable is a separate issue.)
Y-not on March 13, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Good column except “I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception”… So…exactly when does “personhood” get conferred, might one ask? According to the bible, of which I am a believer, God tells us that we are wonderfully made and that He knits us together in our mother’s wombs. I tend to think that “personhood” get’s conferred upon conception and that upon conception it should be protected at all costs!
sabbott on March 13, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Is the Pope a Catholic?
Knucklehead on March 13, 2009 at 2:21 PM
I don’t know why not. That is not the problem, however. I have never had a problem with adult stem cell research (and I can’t really think of anyone who ever has.)
The problem is the embryotic research of course destroys embryos, and as a full-out prolifer I cannot agree to that. Liberals see this as a prolife/proabortion problem regardless whether they get any results from embryotic or not. So they will ignore any gains they could make by adding extra funding to the one we know works in order to keep trying to shove their agenda down everyone’s throats.
Having overwhelming majorities (including a lot of liberal republicans) in both House and Senate, I don’t see why they would care about engaging conservatives in the argument. They can pass it without our help at all. It’s a good idea, but it probably won’t come to pass.
Kelligan on March 13, 2009 at 2:21 PM
The only argument I can think of against human cloning is the “raise a clone to butcher for body parts” scenario. Whats the problem with using it for real reproduction?
On the other hand, I’ve never really had a problem with the idea of designer babies. *shrug*
Count to 10 on March 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Exactly – I started to read the comments but realized I’d need a double dose of BP medication to stomach that swill. All I got through were the standard comments about how “Bush bombed poor innocent people“. I figured many of the remaining would be the whines about “Neo-cons don’t care about the poor people suffering from horrible diseases.” Those people honestly have no morals or ethics.
Obama just admitted that another topic is ABOVE HIS PAYGRADE.
katiejane on March 13, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Let’s face it, we have an arrogant inexperienced politician at the helm of the most powerful nation on earth….who according to Dr. K is intellectually lazy. What to do? Please God save the USA.
d1carter on March 13, 2009 at 2:24 PM
At least he didn’t abdicate his credibility and conservative credentials by supporting him for president, as many of his former ideological colleagues did. Or render his vote meaningless by spouting hopeyfeely mumbojumbo like Noonan. For that, I’m thankful.
bilups on March 13, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Again, if it were taken as a separate item of spending independent of this budget…both parties have much to gain by acting “ideologically selfless” while achieving both sound policy and a real compromise. Democrats could go out and say “see, we’re willing to compromise on life issues” and republicans can go, “see, we’re willing to spend tax dollars on science”. So long as the embryonic ban was permanent and without loophole…so long as the republican funding offer was significant, its like an uber political win.
ernesto on March 13, 2009 at 2:31 PM
What could go wrong? Egg harvesting could be a new stimulus.
/Awesome.
Maybe we can get ACORN and planned parenthood involved. We can set up clinics and harvest all the eggs we’d want. It will help fund lottery tickets and support the new tobacco and liquor taxes, also.
Hey, let’s make extra funds available for more embryos cooked up in a lab. That will give extra incentive to get as moany donors as possible!
Screw it, let’s just fund everything. Everyone knows taxpayer money will solve everything.
What are people going to do when increased funding for embryonic stem cells doesn’t produce? We are due for a new wave of face science and fake reports to back up/knock down claims.
What this country need is seperation of science and state.
reaganaut on March 13, 2009 at 2:33 PM
and I need a spell checker.
reaganaut on March 13, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Many are, myself included.
Mr. MacIan on March 13, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Which is really only going to happen if the state stops paying for science.
…and hear I am arguing myself out of a job…
Count to 10 on March 13, 2009 at 2:41 PM
I dont think ive ever read something here that ive disagreed with more. science is one of the few areas government can and should have a prominent role in funding and direction.
ernesto on March 13, 2009 at 2:41 PM
H
They could raise the embryos as DemocRats. More voters for them.
Sloan Morganstern on March 13, 2009 at 2:51 PM
I’m not sure I agree with you about “direction” (I’ve personally observed a lot of bad science get generated to follow new funding sources; the joke in my old department was that the animal behaviorists were going to figure out how to weaponize chickadees and ground squirrels to tap into homeland security money), but I do agree with you about funding.
Basic research requires government funding. How this evolved to be the case or whether or not private foundations could some day supplant government’s role in supporting basic research, I don’t know, but I do know that the for-profit sector can not be relied upon to fund basic research. The days of IBM and Bell Labs are far behind us.
Y-not on March 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM
hahaha probably!
Indeed they are. The government, primarily through our leading universities, must pick up that slack. Its doable, and being done, but the funding must increase. significantly. double, triple even.
ernesto on March 13, 2009 at 2:55 PM
I’d bet a lot of money that Obama would love to clone himself, since he’s so perfect.
drjohn on March 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM
The fruit of the poisonous tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Human Science is never value free. Just ask those who have no values.
Randy
williars on March 13, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Can’t we just have abortions in blue states, and wild crazy sex in red states?
faraway on March 13, 2009 at 3:02 PM
too bad all the best sex is happening in NY
ernesto on March 13, 2009 at 3:04 PM
I would love to read the headline “Obama’s embryonic stem research produces successful clone of Rush Limbaugh”. Then it would be all worth it.
Fogpig on March 13, 2009 at 3:04 PM
I bet there are lots and lots of Bill Clinton clones all over the country – and beyond.
faraway on March 13, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Obama would truly achieve a miracle if he could make Krauthammer “walk out” on him. Wish it were possible, and I’m sure Dr. K does too.
drunyan8315 on March 13, 2009 at 3:25 PM
It’s one of the ultimate showings of selfishness…
A person is killed with the hopes of me living a “normal” life? PLEASE!
CynicalOptimist on March 13, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Who says they’re clones… they call ‘em OFFSPRING….
CynicalOptimist on March 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Then your fight is with IVF, not stem cell research. If there were no fertility clinic excess, there would be no embryonic research. Anyone opposed to embryonic research on pro life grounds should be out there trying to ban IVF as well. If you’re not, you’re not saving any lives.
ernesto on March 13, 2009 at 3:57 PM
No, Bush refused to pander on the issue, and carefully considered where to draw the line. If he had been pandering to his base, he would have just blocked the funding and been done with it.
Of course, he gets no credit for his careful approach from jerks like you, who accuse him of pandering just like Obama accuses him of subjugating science to superstition.
You’re free to disagree with Bush’s position. Many do. But give him credit for taking a position and stating it clearly, rather than just making a knee-jerk reaction.
tom on March 13, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Best line ever!!!
…and if stem cell research/cloning gone wild is coming coming soon, can we at least make sure to have some more Dr. Krathammers around?
little italy on March 13, 2009 at 4:39 PM
No way. Not anymore.
You just outlined the problem, with funding comes direction.
The results must fit the politics of those directing. The very nature of the research is driven by the polticians. The science is corrupted.
Taking gub’mint money is like taking a loan from the mafia.
I don’t want the party of man-made global warming, infanticide, and euthenasia directing scientific research.
reaganaut on March 13, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Odd note in Krauthammer’s otherwise excellent article:
First, it’s quite obvious that conception marks the beginning of human life. To believe that an embryo should be treated as a person does not require being religious.
Second, he essentially offers no intellectual defense of WHY Obama is wrong to treat human embryos as valid for research. If it’s not because being human, they should automatically be treated as persons, then why?
tom on March 13, 2009 at 4:54 PM
But, Obama is HISTORIC. Didn’t you people get the memo?
Moesart on March 13, 2009 at 5:04 PM
That’d solve his dilemma with the American people unreasonably expecting him to be present in the White House.
Maquis on March 13, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Exactly. Science is effective because it’s free of control. As long as your scientific research is done correctly, it doesn’t matter who the scientist is, just that the conclusions are defensible.
tom on March 13, 2009 at 5:21 PM
I had the same reaction. Your post beat me to it.
Christian Conservative on March 13, 2009 at 5:37 PM
If liberals cant direct in in ways that offend you…than conservatives cant either. That means the arbitrary restrictions you get to set on things like federal embryonic research go out the window…so long as you accept that there should be no federal research going on i suppose you’re ok. But if you accept that the government has a role in funding than you cant pick and choose who you want making decisions.
a world without government funded science is not a world in which i wish to live.
ernesto on March 13, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Why does science have to be funded by government to count? If the science is being done, does it matter who funded it? If you’re only concerned about the profit motive, there are universities that do considerable amounts of science.
Practically speaking, of course, there will never be a hard and bright line between science and government. Regardless, government does not need to be given control of science, or vice versa. That principle is far more important than the relative value of a government funding of science.
tom on March 13, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Hi tom,
ernesto and I disagree on almost every thread, but I have to agree with him about the necessity of government providing funding for basic research, at least under the current academic and for-profit R&D situation. (I hasten to add that as a conservative, I disagree with him about the need to double/triple/etc the NIH budget… and, as a former research scientist, I disagree with him about it “directing” the areas [see above] in anything but the broadest sense.)
I’m curious what entities you envision being the alternative funder or funders to supplant federal research funding?
Although it is true that corporate research contracts provide some support for university-based research, it’s not a large percentage of the funding, particularly in basic research fields. My engineering colleagues (when I was a science faculty member at a Big 10 school) had at most 30% of their research funding from corporate support — very few of my colleagues in the basic sciences (physics, biology, chemistry) had any corporate support. I expect this will become even worse with the increased taxes anticipated under Obama. Companies tend to want to fund projects that are close to providing deliverables, not basic research projects — hence the tendency to work with engineers (or B-school faculty).
Private foundations provide some funding for basic research, but again they tend to be driven by their mission statements (which are coupled to their source of funds) so you tend to get an emphasis on medically-oriented research. There are exceptions, of course — places like the Keck Foundation do fund cutting edge basic research in the life sciences and engineering. But, with the downturn in the market, many foundations are cutting back on their grant-making because their endowments are simply not performing well.
I have served on grant review panels for NIH and NSF, as well as on review panels for a few private foundations. There is very little politicization of the review process, except for the usual sorts of personality politics that any profession has. NSF does have a “broader impacts” component to its mission which means that projects are supposed to provide an educational opportunity for women and minorities when they can, in addition to the scientific aims of the work. That’s about it though.
The politics that concerns me is when Congress specifically identifies areas that they tell the granting agencies (NSF, NIH, DOD, DOE, etc) to make grants in… for example, breast cancer at the DOD or AIDS projects at NIH or ‘homeland security’ projects across several agencies. Those, in my opinion, create a flurry of poorly thought out proposals by people trying to get the funding. It’s a waste of energy and siphons off money that should be going to long-term work on things that are less sexy, but still of fundamental importance.
Just my two cents, but I honestly cannot see a need to take the federal government out of the grant-making business. American research — and even academe — is not broken under the current system, just somewhat wobbly. In my opinion, it still vastly superior to what I’ve observed in other countries in Europe, South America, and Asia.
Y-not on March 13, 2009 at 8:37 PM