"Revelation
of the Nerds:
The religion of stem-cell research."
by William Saletan
The hot new issue of 2004 was born in a lab dish.
As Slate's Timothy Noah documented
last week, "stem cells" were mentioned 20 times at the
Democratic National Convention, more than unemployment and abortion
combined. John Kerry is raising the issue at practically every
campaign stop. Polls suggest
it could attract enough independents and Republicans to decide
the election. Pundits are amazed. How has science trumped politics,
ideology, and religion as a campaign issue?
I'll tell you how: Science has become political,
ideological, and religious.
The conceit of the stem-cell movement is just
the opposite. "Here in America, we don't sacrifice science
for ideology," Kerry declared
Saturday as he devoted his weekly radio address to stem cells
for the second time this summer. The Kerry campaign charged
that President Bush "has politicized science" and
promised that Kerry would choose "scientific research over
politics." In a prime-time speech at the Democratic convention,
Ron Reagan, son of the late president, noted
that opponents of embryonic stem-cell research, which entails
the destruction of microscopic embryos, regard such destruction
as "tantamount to murder." Reagan concluded, "Their
belief is just that, an article of faith, and they are entitled
to it. But it does not follow that the theology of a few should
be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many."
For years, stem-cell researchers were indeed
scientific, apolitical, and irreligious. That's why they had no
juice. On Aug. 9, 2001, when Bush authorized
federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research but limited it
to cell lines created before that date, there wasn't much outcry
for more freedom. So, the stem-cell lobby went to work. Patients
whose diseases might be cured got organized. Biotech companies
geared up. Hollywood big-shots lobbied Congress. Strategists boiled
the issue down to handy slogans.
The stem-cell movement has become political.
"Three years ago, the president enacted a far-reaching ban
on stem-cell research," Kerry asserted in his radio address.
Repeating a pledge made by Hillary
Clinton at the Democratic convention, Kerry promised twice
that he would "lift the ban on stem-cell research."
But no such ban exists. Embryonic stem-cell research is unrestricted
in the private sector. State and local governments can fund it
as they wish. The federal government spent nearly $200 million
on adult stem-cell research last year and nearly $25 million on
research involving the roughly 20 approved embryonic lines. As
today's Washington Post observes,
what Bush actually did was "to allow, for the first time,
the use of federal funds" for embryonic stem-cell research.
Why does Kerry call it a "ban on stem-cell
research" instead of a ban on federal funding of embryonic
stem-cell lines derived after Aug. 9, 2001? Because the shorter
phrase, while scientifically inaccurate in four egregious ways,
is more politically effective.
The stem-cell movement has become ideological.
One scientist who is organizing his colleagues for Kerry told
the Post that stem-cell research has become an "icon"
for broader complaints about Bush's policies. He added that his
group has adopted "ideology trumps science" as its theme.
A Democratic political strategist told American Demographics,
"It's more than just stem-cell research—it's the symbolism
of announcing a plan to eradicate major diseases, and part of
the Baby Boomers' health care crisis."
To protect the symbolism, facts must be shaded.
Kerry's pollsters must phrase the destruction of embryos in the
past tense to dissociate this unpleasant necessity from the benefits
of stem-cell research. The research must be insulated from comparative
cost-benefit analysis by asking voters, through ballot measures,
to designate billions of dollars exclusively for stem-cell work
instead of other medical studies. California is now pursuing this;
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi wants other states to follow
suit. Any limit on stem-cell funding must be vilified as immoral.
Stem cells pose a choice "between true compassion and mere
ideology," Ron Reagan declared in his convention speech.
In a statement yesterday, John Edwards warned critics,
"It is against our national character to look the other way
when people are suffering."
Above all, the stem-cell movement has become
religious. According to a poll
taken in June by Results for America, a pro-stem-cell group, none
of the diseases most susceptible to stem-cell therapy touches
more than 17 percent of Americans (by affecting them, a family
member, or a close friend). But throw in Alzheimer's disease,
and the number leaps to 28 percent. Seventy-two percent of respondents
say they would be more likely "to support stem-cell research
if you knew that experts think it may hold the key to curing the
Alzheimer's disease that afflicted President Reagan." Kerry's
pollsters have seen the same effect. When they tell voters that
"stem-cell research is being used by scientists trying to
find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's disease" as well
as Parkinson's and diabetes, 69 percent support the research.
The trouble is, the Alzheimer's hype isn't true.
On June 10, the Post's Rick Weiss reported that "given the
lack of any serious suggestion that stem cells themselves have
practical potential to treat Alzheimer's, the Reagan-inspired
tidal wave of enthusiasm [for stem cell research] stands as an
example of how easily a modest line of scientific inquiry can
grow in the public mind to mythological proportions. It is a distortion
that some admit is not being aggressively corrected by scientists."
Why don't scientists dispel the myth? "People need a fairy
tale," NIH researcher Ronald McKay told Weiss. "Maybe
that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple
to understand."
Two days after Weiss' article appeared, Kerry
used his radio
address to peddle the Alzheimer's fairy tale. He spoke of
"the limitless potential of our science" and of things
unseen: "the cures that are there, if only [scientists] are
allowed to look."
He emphasized the power of will, hope, and belief
in the absence of evidence.
There is a moment after you get the call from
a doctor that you or a loved one must face a disease like Alzheimer's
where you decide that it can't mean the end—that you won't
let it. So in our own way, we become researchers and scientists.
We become advocates and friends, and we reach for a cure that
cannot—that must not–be too far away. Some call this
denial. But I'm sure that Nancy Reagan—the wife of an eternal
optimist—calls it hope. … Millions share this hope,
and it is because of their commitment that stem-cell research
has brought us closer to finding ways to treat Alzheimer's and
many other diseases.
A month later, on the eve of her convention,
Pelosi called stem-cell therapy "the biblical power to cure."
At the convention, Ron Reagan likened it to "magic."
Reps. Diana DeGette of Colorado and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin
trumpeted its "medical miracles." Rep. James Langevin
of Rhode Island, a paraplegic, proclaimed his "strong faith
that we will find a cure." "I believe one day I will
walk again," said Langevin, adding, "Embryonic stem
cell research offers new dreams to so many people." Democrats
even engraved the myth in their platform: "Stem-cell therapy
offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious
illnesses—from Alzheimer's to heart disease to juvenile
diabetes to Parkinson's."
In his radio address this weekend, Kerry blamed
Bush's stem-cell restrictions for "shutting down some of
the most promising work to prevent, treat and cure Alzheimer's."
With the salesmanship of a faith healer, Kerry dangled promises
no responsible scientist would countenance. "At this very
moment, some of the most pioneering cures and treatments are right
at our fingertips, but because of the stem-cell ban, they remain
beyond our reach," said Kerry. "To those who pray each
day for cures that are now beyond our reach—I want you to
know that help is on the way. I want you to hold on, and keep
faith, because come next January, when John Edwards and I are
sworn into office … we're going to lift the ban on stem-cell
research."
Kerry's appeals to faith and prayer don't end
there. He asks voters to believe, on the same spiritual basis,
that science will create ethical boundaries for itself. "We
must look to the future not with fear but with the hope and the
faith that advances in medicine will advance our best values,"
he pleaded
in a recent speech promoting stem-cell research. "I have
full faith that our scientists will go forward with a moral compass,"
he added. All we must do, he advised, is "pursue the limitless
potential of science—and trust that we can use it wisely."
I want to have faith, John. I want to hope and
dream. I want to believe in the magic and the miracles and the
power of prayer. But if you want to preserve trust in science,
stick to the evidence.
|
