To be fair, I should try to explain how he could have said things differently. Obviously I disagree with the decision in question here, and of course I wouldn't really be “happy” regardless of how he stated things. But to truly show that he understands the divisiveness, he'd have had to have stated the basis for disagreement and then explained why he wasn't taking that side.

But nowhere does he even attempt to explain why funding THIS form of the research would be more important to the ultimate goals of the research than funding the less contentious forms of pluripotent cell research (adult cells or engineered pluripotent cells.) In neglecting to explain any rationale for that, he chooses to paint dissenters (and the preceeding administration) as an obstruction to the progress, and he does so without even advancing a single argument to back that viewpoint.

I also find it offensive that he uses his religious beliefs at one point to explain his support for this policy, and yet those of us whose religious views lead us to a different conclusion are constantly told that this shouldn't be part of the political debate.

“At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions…But that potential will not reveal itself on its own. Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research – from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit – and from a government willing to support that work.”

“It is a difficult and delicate balance. Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view. But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans – from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs – have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.”

“Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No President can promise that. But I can promise that we will seek them – actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground. Not just by opening up this new frontier of research today, but by supporting promising research of all kinds, including groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells.”

The only time he got close to your complaint was:
“This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let’s be clear: promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

But all in all, he did say that it was legitimate to disagree, and that the source of his opening the funds was from popular support. He also said that the advances will take years or may not even happen at all.

Oh, I beg to differ with that. The libertarian argument against any form of abortion or use of embryos for research is that it treats one form of human life as a commodity to serve other humans' needs. Along with that, there's the 'slippery slope' argument that if we use a quality like sentience to determine legal personhood, that puts in jeopardy the rationale for right to life for people with severe cognitive impairments.

Of course when you're talking about treatments for awful diseases and conditions things are going to get emotional. It's really the same thing when you start talking about whether or not an embryo has a soul. Dispassionate discourse is just not going to be possible under those circumstances, and it never will be as long as the chief complaint is deeply rooted in religious beliefs. In fact, I don't think you could make an argument *against* using embryonic stem cells that would convince anyone without drawing on emotional outrage at what's being done to these “microscopic people.”
But the problem is that the left has been trying (and pretty successfully) to keep religion out as long as it's religion that informs conservative views. So, the 'ensouled' argument isn't permitted, yet even Obama made reference to his religious views which support the finding of cures to alleviate pain and suffering. I cry foul on allowing that to guide the debate on one side but not the other.

So you start with a negative opinion toward the research, then frame the debate in disingenuous (and emotionally charged) ways, while simultaneously dismissing your opponents as well-meaning but misguided religious zealots, and you get a predictable rise in public support for your position.

Perhaps there was a negative opinion of using the embryonic stem cells in the first place. But I think it's pretty clear that once people realized it could very likely lead to treatments for crippling and fatal maladies (which you don't seem to refute) a majority thought the tradeoff was worth it.

Of course when you're talking about treatments for awful diseases and conditions things are going to get emotional. It's really the same thing when you start talking about whether or not an embryo has a soul. Dispassionate discourse is just not going to be possible under those circumstances, and it never will be as long as the chief complaint is deeply rooted in religious beliefs. In fact, I don't think you could make an argument *against* using embryonic stem cells that would convince anyone without drawing on emotional outrage at what's being done to these “microscopic people.”

“The research has always been allowed, conservatives say, it has merely been denied funding from the government. The only change is where the money comes from.

This is like listening to insurance companies say that they are not denying coverage when they refuse to pay for a surgical procedure-they are just denying payment.

That argument will only wash if the client being denied has the money for the operation in the first place. The same holds true with stem cell research. Most medical research happens in Universities and most of that research is funded by government grants specifically set forth for said research. Conservatives know this already, so they should can that argument.”

So is he telling me to can the argument because the universities can't afford the research without government-sourced funding? Because if so, this guy is not going to be able to convince a desert dweller to drink water.

No I meant Obama had a character attack against opponents and I think I will write a post about it. Whew. OK, I thought you'd really gone off the deep end.

Anyway I don't see how you can just say that the public was manipulated into supporting it by pointing out that solid majorities were opposed prior to 2001, when it wasn't even an issue and no one had heard about it. Well that's only part of it. The article then goes on to show how the debate was framed by the media and political ads, and how the questions were asked on surveys. So you start with a negative opinion toward the research, then frame the debate in disingenuous (and emotionally charged) ways, while simultaneously dismissing your opponents as well-meaning but misguided religious zealots, and you get a predictable rise in public support for your position.

About the opinion polls, I think the greater issue is it went up to 70% after they asked whether they'd support it if a family member was affected, which was a 15% increase…

The polls I was citing was this one and another one in 2006.

Anyway I don't see how you can just say that the public was manipulated into supporting it by pointing out that solid majorities were opposed prior to 2001, when it wasn't even an issue and no one had heard about it.

Quite frankly you can get any poll to say just about anything based on how you word it because people are on the whole ignorant and have weak core understanding of things so they latch onto keywords. Then once they commit to a position they tend to stick with it to avoid cognitive dissonance. Don't even get me started about the tricks used to appeal to the subconscious emotional appeal and what not. To be honest I'm getting pretty cynical about public discourse in general (I didn't feel that good when Obama won because I was hoping that people would back him for his policies that I felt were amazing and yet when I saw the type of his broad support I knew that people were going to mostly disengage again and just expect him to fix everything) but I don't see anything out of bounds in what you're complaining about based on the low bar.

I have a real big problem with the idea that our politicians should go by individual ethical lines and stick by it. I think it is insane that policy does a 180 based on whether 51% of people voted for one guy instead of the other, especially when there are tons of factors. If I were to run for office I'd campaign on the idea that there are a few core inalienable rights that I'd always stand for and mark those in stone, and then say everything else I'd just vote on what my constituents want regardless of whether I support that side or not. I would do my best to try to convince people to change their minds, but if they don't then I'd go ahead and vote against what I thought.

Oh and about Bush being anti-science, he WAS anti-science. There are dozens upon dozens of examples across tons fields where they censored and misconstrued reports that were issued and scientific knowledge in general. He was hated by scientists of nearly all political backgrounds for doing this. I'm just saying on this particular example I don't remember him saying anything egregious.

You're probably right in the sense that the vast majority of people are completely incapable of seeing that society's best interest may not always coincide with what they see as their own individual self interest.

I'm not advancing the idea of discussing cost as a means of trying to reduce support for ESCR- I'm just predicting that we're going to have disastrous results if we continue on the current course because it's completely unsustainable. Somewhere along the line we have to decide if we want everyone to have access to affordable basic health care or if we want to push the envelope of what medical research can do to prolong our lives.

The entire article talked about what you said he should have talked about. I guess he could have more explicitly said that the politics have been distorted, but he's outlining the general problem with turning over the details to 'science' instead of framing the political debates on both the pros and cons of the scientific advances.

I don't think he referred to the policiy as anti-Democratic, he just said it was a failure of governance. It's one of those cases where good governance has additional responsibilities besides taking a head count of supporters (especially when those supporters may well have been misled about what they're expressing support for.)

but the public lobbying for ESCR has specifically led people to believe that these treatments are imminent (if only we get rid of the opposition which seeks to oppose science!) This has been done specifically for the purpose of overcoming people's longstanding discomfort with the ethics of the situation

I'm not really sure how this changes anything if true. I've always been under the impression that celebrities like Michael J. Fox, Nancy Reagan and Christopher Reeve believed that ESCR held the potential to cure them and their loved ones, or at least mitigate the symptoms. I've never heard anything about how these treatments were imminent if the funding wasn't denied. Instead, the argument seemed to be that these treatments would either never be found, or delayed.

I don't see that argument as untrue or unfair, especially given the counter-argument which is that the embryos' rights outweigh the potential for scientific and medical discovery.

but this technology in particular should be part of the debate because it opens up whole new avenues (many chronic diseases like diabetes would be managed with this technology if it's successful, and cancer might become more of a chronic disease condition instead of an often terminal illness.)

Which is exactly why most people (according to your poll numbers) don't oppose this type of research. You should probably stick to the moral argument about embryos, because saying that a treatment for cancer is bad will probably convince more people to support ESCR.

Are you talking about this as a character attack on Obama? You have to be joking- Obama is the one who keeps referring to the Bush administration's 'opposition to science'. That's not a character attack?

Bush had the guts to allow federal funding for the original cell lines, after Clinton kicked the ball down the road. That was, as I indicated before, when the majority of the public was queasy about the whole thing to begin with. Yet instead of getting any credit at all, the public has largely been convinced that he was anti-science, just because he also had the courage to draw ethical lines and stick by them.

At least if you're going to refuse to engage arguments that you feel are ad hominem, then be consistent please and call out Obama himself when he does this.

And yes, I do think that we ought to be debating all of the medical advances in terms of 'where do we stop', but this technology in particular should be part of the debate because it opens up whole new avenues (many chronic diseases like diabetes would be managed with this technology if it's successful, and cancer might become more of a chronic disease condition instead of an often terminal illness.)

http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/stem-cell…

Oddly, I can't find much in the way of major surveys after 2007, but during that time (when Bush vetoed the funding bill) the Pew survey showed public support for the funding at 51%, not the 70% claimed by Pelosi (and which seems to have taken hold, as many people are saying support is at 2/3 or more.) I think those numbers come from earlier polls where people were asked specifically if they supported 'ethical ESCR” or something along those lines- which could mean many different things to different people. The Pew poll I mentioned had it like this:

All in all, which is more important: conducting stem cell research that might result in new medical cures, or not destroying the potential life of human embryos involved in this research?

Conducting stem cell research
51%

Not destroying potential life
35%

Unsure
14%
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 3,002 American adults, conducted from Aug. 1 to Aug. 18, 2007. Margin of error is 2 per cent.

I think there was an ABC poll recently showing that 59% of Americans favored 'loosening the restrictions' as Obama just did- but given that many people seemed to not even realize that the research wasn't banned, just the federal funding- I'm not inclined to put much faith in that since many people didn't even know what restrictions were really in place.

I have no problem with opponents trying to change people's minds by talking about all the facts and trying to get a majority against it. I might think the reasons to be against it are stupid, but there is nothing inherently wrong with believing otherwise so I can't get upset about people trying to get popular support against it. Now if an opponent said “they aren't telling you about the cloning aspect and the length of time it'll take to develop cures” and then proponents said “oh no we don't need to clone because it's easy to get around that and we'll have it next year” then of course I'd be against that because it's a lie.

Just like how I had no problem with people trying to convince others that we should go into Iraq but I had a huge problem with them saying that it would be easy when there was a CIA report that was against it, and that when opponents pointed this out they were attacked. I wasn't angry because the report existed and they weren't discussing it widely, but that those who did were marginalized and not allowed to speak.

Now again I act differently because I always just put down everything I know when arguing something and then say what I conclude. I've noticed almost no one else does that though so I've had to settle for being placated by people telling the truth and not doing character attacks. On that I have no idea really how much they have stretched the truth because I don't keep up with the public message, and like I already said, looking at it as a whole I feel it is inappropriate of him to say what amounted to a character attack when it's really just a question of subjective morals. This goes back to the thing that you disagree with my standards for popular discourse.

Those lobbying for it have led people to believe that if we would fund the ESCR, cures for all sorts of diseases are on the horizon

This is the heart of research isn't it? Scientific inquiry is never certain, in other words, you never know until you try.

And aside from all that, even if all these cures do come more quickly as you suggest they might, where is the pubic policy debate on how that is going to affect health care costs and entitlement spending as people begin living past 100?

Come now. There are any number of medical procedures and medicine that have extended the average lifespan. Should we start debating whether or not to allow cancer treatment, heart transplants, pacemakers and AIDS medicines?

And yet you complain when someone alludes to this type of manipulation of public opinion as cloak room politics.

The greater point for stem cell scientists though is that all the direction about adult stem cells comes from embryonic research. Even the most promising advances still have the researchers requesting that embryonic continue so they can better see how to manipulate theirs. Of course that technique would be far preferred if it worked so there wouldn't have to be cloning, but for many experiments about actual differentiation I think they'll want to use embryonic for a long time for research.

I dunno on stuff like this I'm too close to the actual understanding to have any idea about what the political rhetoric is, so I have no idea what most people are expecting. If they think it'll bring cures in the next decade then obviously they are wrong, but on the other hand, they've treated “alzhemiers,” paralysis, kidney failure, burns and a host of other intractable problems in mice just over the last 8 years when this was first brought up. It's been amazing how quickly it's worked in mice (it even slowed aging), and is a case where they are getting positive results faster than they know entirely what's going on. Maybe human cures aren't that far away, who knows?

And I think you're making a false distinction between moral opposition and the 'tangible material' arguments. Ethics can and should also fall under the category of material arguments, and to give just one example based on GM foods, part of the opposition is that this technology will commodify food sources so that farmers will no longer be able to use their own seed for crops, they'll have to purchase the patented seeds. The core of that argument is not a whole lot different than the libertarian argument against the use of human embryos (not that people will be forced to purchase them- but just that once we permit this, we've accepted that one form of human life exists as a commodity to be manipulated by our technology, and there are implications to that which affect human freedoms.)

,blockquote>It probably would have been better if instead of saying that it was against science to be against ESR Obama just said it was impossible to answer and a large majority are for it so that's why he did it. Yeah, ya think?