# A false choice between sound science and moral values (stem cells, cloning) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 9, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847 "2009-03-09T17:19:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/41 "2009-03-10T00:49:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Also, given our nation’s recent dalliance with so called “enhanced interrogation techniques”, it seems a little early to claim that there’s some sort of nationwide and generally accepted moral high ground on stem cell issues. > > I don’t follow this argument. It is merely that those who claim some sort of moral high ground in reality don’t have much of it to stand on here. > [@Bricker](#): > > Everyone asserting, directly or by implication, that there is a serious, scientific reason to ban human cloning has failed to articulate that reason. Why must there be a serious scientific reason to ban human cloning? Aren’t a lack of utility or obvious profit potential, and the desire to limit political activism by the moralizers sufficient reasons to **not** start cloning people? ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/42 "2009-03-10T01:39:21Z")
I’m not sure it’s wholly pointless to avoid human cloning. If embryonic stem (ES) cell therapy proves to be more promising than induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell research, we’re going to need to be cloning people and keeping personal ES cell lines. As it is, cloning is a pretty inefficient enterprise. Any improvements in that technology are going to be welcome from an ease-of-use and financial standpoint. Then again there’s obvious reasons to avoid it–namely the convenience of not having the scrutiny that comes with that sort of research. For individual researchers as the benefits of performing human cloning (in terms of achieving funding, stature, satisfaction of scientific advancement etc.) exceed the risks (protests, auditing, violence against involved researchers), I suspect they will begin performing those experiments. Probably a number of researchers would be willing to do it immediately if they were allowed. ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/43 "2009-03-10T01:44:19Z")
It’s worth noting that a number of scientists are able to justify their use of ES cell lines derived from blastocysts because those blastocysts are slated for destruction anyway. Many people are unaware of the fact that the tissue from aborted fetuses is sometimes made available for studies of prenatal gene expression. Most scientists are comfortable with this because the aborted fetuses are a consequence of the normal operations of abortion clinics. That is–the tissue otherwise goes to waste, if it can be used for good, why shouldn’t it be? It becomes a different matter entirely if a woman becomes pregnant and aborts her fetus _for the purposes of research_. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/44 "2009-03-10T02:23:13Z")
> [@](#): > > And I am positive that no one on thios board would say that twins and triplets are somehow more “natural” or “God’s will” and therefore to be favored over other cloning. Really? I can think of a few posters who just might argue that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/45 "2009-03-10T02:51:39Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Why must there be a serious scientific reason to ban human cloning? > Aren’t a lack of utility or obvious profit potential, and the desire to limit political activism by the moralizers sufficient reasons to **not** start cloning people? Yes, those are absolutely sufficient reasons. But those reasons don’t seem to jibe with the rationale offered for the other decision at issue: that it reverses the “false choice” betweeen sound science and moral values. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/46 "2009-03-10T02:52:50Z")
> [@nameless](#): > > It becomes a different matter entirely if a woman becomes pregnant and aborts her fetus _for the purposes of research_. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/47 "2009-03-10T03:22:31Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Because some large fraction of the country would go apeshit if the government sponsored that sort of thing now. > As I said before, Obama’s stand against cloning people prevents the outcry. > On the other hand cloning mammals is still tricky, and you end up with lots of failures and even successes that don’t live as long as their supposed to. There needs to be a significant up side to human cloning before anyone will actually do it and AFAIK, we’re nowhere near having such an up side yet. Oh, let the Chinese do the experimentation, their leaders don’t give a shit about human life. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/48 "2009-03-10T05:55:57Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Why must there be a serious scientific reason to ban human cloning? > Aren’t a lack of utility or obvious profit potential, and the desire to limit political activism by the moralizers sufficient reasons to **not** start cloning people? How much research begins with obvious utility and profit potential? As for the moralizers, I can think of plenty of other research that would offend them - Masters and Johnson, Kinsey, even research into the historical veracity of the Bible. So these don’t seem like really good reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/49 "2009-03-10T06:20:51Z")
> [@](#): > > President Obama is going to reverse the Bush administration’s block of federal funds being used for stem cell research because the prohibition represented “…a false choice between sound science and moral values…” > > However, he says, we won’t ever clone human beings, because “…It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.” > > I don’t understand this objection. How is it “profoundly wrong” to contemplate the cloning of human beings? Isn’t that statement, too, a false choice between sound science and moral values? Isn’t this the point Obama is making? Human cloning would require a choice between science and morality. But if you reject the premise that conducting stem cell research is immoral, then there’s no need to have to make a choice. You can conduct the science without being immoral. So claiming that stem cell research requires a choice between sound science and moral values would indeed be a false choice. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/50 "2009-03-10T06:35:43Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > Right. Being cloned is like having a twin decades younger than yourself. > > But can you appreciate how this is actually the most pointed moral dilemma associated with cloning? If you’re a child growing up knowing that you’re someone’s clone, that person’s life experience will be a perennial burden on you, imposing all sorts of fears and expectations on you. It would be particularly bizarro if you were the clone of someone famous. > > _Six is having problems adjusting to his clone status > All day long you hear him crying so loud > ‘I just wanna be myself > I just wanna be myself > Be myself, be myself, be myself, be myself’_ I haven’t heard a more pointed moral dilemma associated with cloning, and that is a bit bothersome: to me getting a text message on my porta phone is more irritating than growing up in the shadow of someone else. We all do it. Well, most of us. I’m kinda surprised that there isn’t a more pointed problem involved with cloning. As a practical matter the health of a clone is going to be miserable using current cloning techniques, so I’d object for that reason. But if that can be fixed, what are the serious problems? A world full of narcissists having clones instead of babies and the gene pool not getting mixed up? Clone wars? Me leaving everything to my much younger clone rather than my grandchildren? We are a bunch of cranky malcontents. Frankly, we can do better than this. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/51 "2009-03-10T14:39:48Z")
Why do you imagine that many people would choose to have a clone baby instead of a regular baby? Even if we imagine that cloning becomes safe it will still be at least as intrusive as IVF. How many people are going to go through IVF so they can have a cloned baby rather than reproduce the old fashioned way? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/52 "2009-03-10T15:32:56Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Isn’t this the point Obama is making? Human cloning would require a choice between science and morality. But if you reject the premise that conducting stem cell research is immoral, then there’s no need to have to make a choice. You can conduct the science without being immoral. So claiming that stem cell research requires a choice between sound science and moral values would indeed be a false choice. Yes, I see that. I am arguing that cloning also fits in that category – that there’s no scientifically-based reason to accept that cloning is immoral while believing that embryonic stem cell harvesting is not. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/53 "2009-03-10T15:35:22Z")
The problem I see is that Obama himself has closed off human-cloning research himself, instead of letting scientists make that decision themselves. This directly acts against his policy of letting science direct research rather than politicians. Since he needs to distance himself from human cloning politically, to remain consistent, he should have booted the problem to a scientific advisory board. It doesn’t matter whether or not human cloning is useful scientific research, Obama is acting just like Bush when he forbids a line of research he finds distasteful. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/54 "2009-03-10T15:42:42Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > The problem I see is that Obama himself has closed off human-cloning research himself, instead of letting scientists make that decision themselves. This directly acts against his policy of letting science direct research rather than politicians. Since he needs to distance himself from human cloning politically, to remain consistent, he should have booted the problem to a scientific advisory board. > > It doesn’t matter whether or not human cloning is useful scientific research, Obama is acting just like Bush when he forbids a line of research he finds distasteful. Correct. Bush’s decisions were much less palatable to many people. But it amuses me no end to see the defense of this policy on the same type of grounds as the stem cell research ban was defended: _it’s icky and/or immoral_. Neither of those are principled bases for rejection. Honest commentators have acknowledged it’s a political necessity… but even then, when Bush was in, no one seemed to acknowledge the exact same dynamic existed. Bush was apparently expected to abandon his political necessity and bravely do the right thing… if it ruined his support among religious conservatives, good! But Obama’s response to similar political pressures is excused without much thought; of course, of _course_ he has to say this, we all understand. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/55 "2009-03-10T15:46:08Z")
[Top Republican urges Obama to review stem cell move](http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090309/pl_afp/ushealthstemcellsobamacongress_20090309163141) > [@](#): > > The top Republican in the US House of Representatives urged President Barack Obama to “reevaluate” his decision to lift limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. > > “The president has rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us,” charged Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner. > > “As we move forward, I am hopeful that the president will reevaluate this and other controversial decisions that put government at odds with the sanctity of human life,” Boehner said in a statement released by his office. OTOH, other top Republicans, [notably Eric Cantor](http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/08/obama.stem.cells/), say this stem cell thing is just an attempt to distract from the economy: > [@](#): > > “Why are we going and distracting ourselves from the economy? This is job No. 1. Let’s focus on what needs to be done,” Rep. Eric Cantor, the Republican whip in the House of Representatives, told CNN’s "State of the Union ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/56 "2009-03-10T15:51:32Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > [Top Republican urges Obama to review stem cell move](http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090309/pl_afp/ushealthstemcellsobamacongress_20090309163141) Unsurprising, but it will go nowhere. Elections have consequences. The viewpoint that it’s OK to harvest embryonic stem cells is the one that will hold sway for the next four years. > [@](#): > > OTOH, other top Republicans, [notably Eric Cantor](http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/08/obama.stem.cells/), say this stem cell thing is just an attempt to distract from the economy: That’s nonsense from Cantor. It supposes that if the economy were peachy, President Obama wouldn’t do this? Bull. This move is consistent with what he’s stood for all along. It makes perfect sense. (Except, as I say, for the part about claiming that cloning is always wrong). ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/57 "2009-03-10T16:04:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why? I suppose because the intent is different. Let’s deal with two cases, and to be needlessly inflammatory I’ll try and make my points in the context of this abortion hypothetical. 1. A 23-year old graduate student becomes pregnant. The father skips town. She doesn’t make enough money to raise the baby properly, and her immediate family is estranged. She decides, after great consideration, to abort the pregnancy. 2. A 23-year old graduate student takes a position in a developmental biology lab studying prenatal expression of neurogenic transcription factors–an interesting question with potential therapeutic applications. She intentionally gets pregnant and aborts the fetus in the second trimester and then studies the abortus as part of her dissertation. In the former case, the girl’s intent was never to create life. She accidentally kicks off that process by becoming pregnant. She later terminates the pregnancy, in consonance with her original intentions. In the latter case, the girl intends to create life so that it might be later destroyed and used for scientific purposes. While her motives may or may not be ethical (and I’m honestly not sure whether I find her actions acceptable or not), they are very different from the motives of the girl in the former case. It is hard for me to not consider these to be two very different scenarios, ethically speaking. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/58 "2009-03-10T16:26:19Z")
Cantor and Boehner both sound like idiots. I think most of the country is in favor of lifting this restriction, and people are unable to put off their Parkinson’s disease just because there’s a recession. 😛 Obama made it clear during the campaign that he was going to do this. > [@nameless](#): > > I suppose because the intent is different. I can’t see why the intent of a pregnancy matters. A fetus is a fetus and is not aware of the circumstances that lead to its creation. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with your second scenario. I think it makes people uncomfortable because they think it devalues human life (by suggesting even a mother might not care), but I don’t see the importance. ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/59 "2009-03-10T16:43:15Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I can’t see why the intent of a pregnancy matters. A fetus is a fetus and is not aware of the circumstances that lead to its creation. Again, I’m not certain whether I approve or disapprove of the second girl’s actions. I do, however, view them as being different ethical scenarios. Intent matters in murder and manslaughter cases. But the body is just as dead either way. Should we dispose of this distinction as well? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/60 "2009-03-10T16:46:45Z")
> [@nameless](#): > > Intent matters in murder and manslaughter cases. But the body is just as dead either way. Should we dispose of this distinction as well? No, I think it’s a useful one because it involves the risk the crime will happen again. It’s not a crime to get pregnant or have an abortion, and it shouldn’t be. Neither one is wrong, so the intent behind the actions doesn’t matter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847.md?page=4)