July 27, 2006

More on the stem cell veto

The Ayn Rand Institute issued another press release, also quoting Dr. Brook, and again, I agree with his arguments but not his conclusion:

"It is only because science today is so dominantly funded by the government that restrictions on federal funding can wreak the devastation they have--severely hindering a promising area of potentially life-saving medical research.
"If science were left free, as it should be, funded solely by private sources, a scientist would not have to plead the merits of his work before a majority of politicians, however ignorant or prejudiced by religious or other dogmas they might be.

Dr. Brook goes on to say that "The government should get out of the business of funding science. But so long as it is involved, it must scrupulously respect the separation of church and state. Its funding decisions must be made on rationally demonstrable, not faith-based, grounds. Bush's veto clearly violates this principle." (emphasis in the original)

Yes, indeed, the government should get out of the business of funding science, as Dr. Brook says. It should also get out of the business of carrying on business which is unconstitutional -- that is, illegal. Again, I agree that President Bush's motives are not to be admired. It's also true that his timing, politically, is pretty poor. But such funding is illegal on the face of it, so even though we're funding other illegal activities and programs, how is it immoral to veto funding on this one? Not to mention that this veto represents at least one break, however minor, on uncontrolled government spending. Arguing otherwise is to go with the "we're spending ourselves sober" type of Republican argument.

Posted by Craig Ceely at July 27, 2006 02:35 PM
Comments

This issue has been discussed on HBL. Your objection was raised and I believe good arguements against it were made. Here is a summary of some of them:

The Right is not saying that medical research should be private, and since stem cell research is important, let's start there. That would
be a sensible position, but it is not what's happening--and just because the concretes match that sentiment doesn't mean that the situation is in any way a springboard for freedom.

So while the direct effect may seem positive, the motivations involved actually reinforce the idea that government has the right to decide what is right or wrong based on whim, in this case for religious considerations. It is, in this case, another leak in the wall between church and state.

So I think that the separation of church and state is the most important issue here. The government can't distinguish between scientific or medical issues on religious grounds.

Posted by: D Eastbrook at July 28, 2006 01:23 PM