The States, the Feds, and Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Posted by Jesse Reynolds May 12, 2007
Biopolitical Times
Over at the Hastings Bioethics Forum, Sam Berger and James Fossett publicly air a disagreement about the appropriate roles of the federal and state governments in funding stem cell research (SCR). While they both make critical points, they also engage in a rhetorical exercise that misses the mark.
Berger, of the Center for American Progress, asserts that research advocates should focus on the federal government. He accurately notes that the multiple state programs are causing redundancies, inefficiencies, and inconsistent research standards. But his claim that the federal government will remain the largest supporter of SCR is of questionable relevance in this debate because it relies on the inclusion of both human and nonhuman as well as both embryonic and non-embryonic SCR, even though only human embryonic SCR is controversial and faces limitations on its federal funding. Berger does focus on embryonic SCR in his assertion that federal funding for SCR is inadequate, and implies that the feds should spend more. (See page 3 of the report [PDF] that served as the basis for Berger's Bioethics Forum piece.)
Meanwhile, Fossett, of the Alden March Bioethics Institute, claims that the federal government is and will remain secondary to the states in the funding of SCR, even with a Democratic president in 2009. He is explicit where Berger is implicit: The federal government should not only remove restrictions on which stem cell lines can receive federal funds, it should spend more on SCR.
This is where I diverge with some supporters of embryonic SCR. While I oppose Bush's restrictions, and wish to see them repealed, I question the now-routine call to fund stem cell research with large sums of dedicated funds earmarked for this particular line of investigation. Although the goals of publicly funded research, as well as its regulations and oversight, should be socially negotiated, the relative merits of different avenues of research should be determined by the processes of scientific deliberation that have been set up at the NIH and similar federal agencies.
In the case of embryonic SCR, some advocates seem to be as concerned with political victories as they are with scientific or medical advance. This has removed SCR, and particularly embryonic SCR, from the norms of scientific deliberation. This is the kind of "politicization of science" that strengthens the hand of the opponents of embryonic SCR.
Berger, of the Center for American Progress, asserts that research advocates should focus on the federal government. He accurately notes that the multiple state programs are causing redundancies, inefficiencies, and inconsistent research standards. But his claim that the federal government will remain the largest supporter of SCR is of questionable relevance in this debate because it relies on the inclusion of both human and nonhuman as well as both embryonic and non-embryonic SCR, even though only human embryonic SCR is controversial and faces limitations on its federal funding. Berger does focus on embryonic SCR in his assertion that federal funding for SCR is inadequate, and implies that the feds should spend more. (See page 3 of the report [PDF] that served as the basis for Berger's Bioethics Forum piece.)
Meanwhile, Fossett, of the Alden March Bioethics Institute, claims that the federal government is and will remain secondary to the states in the funding of SCR, even with a Democratic president in 2009. He is explicit where Berger is implicit: The federal government should not only remove restrictions on which stem cell lines can receive federal funds, it should spend more on SCR.
This is where I diverge with some supporters of embryonic SCR. While I oppose Bush's restrictions, and wish to see them repealed, I question the now-routine call to fund stem cell research with large sums of dedicated funds earmarked for this particular line of investigation. Although the goals of publicly funded research, as well as its regulations and oversight, should be socially negotiated, the relative merits of different avenues of research should be determined by the processes of scientific deliberation that have been set up at the NIH and similar federal agencies.
In the case of embryonic SCR, some advocates seem to be as concerned with political victories as they are with scientific or medical advance. This has removed SCR, and particularly embryonic SCR, from the norms of scientific deliberation. This is the kind of "politicization of science" that strengthens the hand of the opponents of embryonic SCR.
.jpg){kind=link}
