President Obama's reversal of Bush administration science policies aims to free up scientific research. One hopes that he does not intend to free science from moral scrutiny. In his statement regarding human embryonic stem-cell research, Obama said that he will base public policies on "the soundest science" and that he will appoint scientific advisors "based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology."
What was lacking in Obama's vision is any mention of the deep and serious moral questions that surround inquiry in the life sciences. He did note that human cloning was unethical. But he did not admit the fact that for some it is also immoral to use human embryos for research.
Now I happen to believe that human embryonic stem cell research can be morally justified. There is a reasonable utilitarian argument about the potential benefits of stem cell technology. And there are good reasons to believe that pre-implantation embryos are not the sorts of beings who can be harmed.
I have come to this conclusion after long years of reflection. And the conclusion is offered with trepidation and hesitation. I recognize that there are serious and compelling arguments on the other side of the issue. The most important is that in viewing human embryos as mere things to be used, we devalue human life in general by viewing some forms of human life as mere tools to be used by others.
Those who argue against human embryonic stem-cell research are not simply driven by politics or ideology, as Obama suggests. Indeed, it is insulting to claim that those who believe that life begins at conception are merely ideological. I do not happen to believe that life begins at conception.
But the idea is not silly and easily dismissed. There are deep and complicated questions to be pondered here. Our ideas about using human embryos for research are connected to our larger view of life and its meaning.
Serious moral inquiry is not merely political or ideological. It is true that the stem-cell research issue can be used for political and ideological purposes: as a way of gaining support from a certain part of the electorate.
But there is more here than mere politics. Morality can be used by politicians for political ends. But this does not mean that we should ignore serious moral disagreement. Rather, we must continually ask whether there are moral limits to our never-ending quest for improved medical technology.
It is dangerous to believe that scientists will make morally sound decisions if left alone to pursue scientific inquiry wherever that may take them. Science can tell us nothing about morality. Moral principles are not facts that can be studied by the scientific method. Scientists lack expertise in thinking about moral principles - they specialize in questions of fact, not questions of value.
Scientific inquiry has routinely crossed moral lines. In the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study of the mid-20th century, American scientists withheld treatment from black men with syphilis so that they could observe the natural progression of the disease. And scientific inquiry led to the development of the atomic bomb and other weapons of mass destruction.
Science is not sufficient to answer moral questions. This is why federal law requires that scientific inquiry be regulated by Institutional Review Boards and other ethical review panels. We cannot simply give science a free pass to pursue inquiry wherever it leads. Rather, science must be guided by moral insight.
Stem-cell research is just the tip of the iceberg here. Scientists are unlocking secrets and developing technologies at a pace that goes much faster than the slow deliberation of moral reflection.
We must proceed with caution and be careful to recognize that there are serious moral questions on all sides of these issues.