I was reading "Pharyngula," a good biology blog, and came across this post. I find the analogy entirely obscure - how it "exactly" fits the embryonic stem cell case is never made clear - but what really caught my interest was this footnote:
*Maybe I should reply to the next person who tells me to list the tangible benefits of ES research with “Cerebral enhancers, auto-regeneration, Nu-Skin, and biogotchies!” It’s about equivalent. How the heck was Michael Faraday supposed to predict commercial developments in the next century? How are we?
It set me off thinking, because I suddenly realized I had never heard embryonic stem cell research proponents defend e.s.c. research with any argument other than a consequentialist one; and if this is the best they are doing, a challenge to it in those terms would be entirely reasonable. If, however, there is some stronger nonconsequentialist argument being put forward in the public arena by advocates, this would (potentially) block the challenge as unreasonable. So I nosed around on the internet to see what I could find. The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research. On its front page, saying why it supports embryonic stem cell research we find:
Embryonic stem cells show tremendous promise, federal funding of the research protects the public interest, and the majority of Americans support stem cell research.
Call these (1), (2) and (3). (1) is the consequentialist argument. (3) is very weak as a policy argument when the question is not a matter of adiaphora but touches on ethical issues. (2) is intriguing, but in this statement very vague. Clicking on the link for further information gives the talking points for each of these three. The talking points for (2):
Private funding means research without federal oversight
Without federal funding, the nation’s top academic researchers at universities, medical schools and teaching hospitals cannot join in the search for cures, which means much slower progress.
Tax dollars keep the “public” in public interest. This research should not be confined to the for-profit, commercial sector.
The government should be providing oversight of the work and ensuring that the research complies with ethical guidelines.
Again, intriguing, but very sketchy. If someone, completely new to the issue, were looking for information on why e.s.c. research is not bad but was not a consequentialist in ethics, this wouldn't give them much to work with; it doesn't explain, for instance, why the government can't regulate research it doesn't fund, which is the key issue. Without further information, the third talking point wouldn't really do anything. The first and second talking points do nothing to alleviate worries or fears about the ethics of the matter. So I looked at the Legislative Toolkit. It provides the same information as the links from the front page. So the CAMR really doesn't give people concerned purely with the ethics of it much to go on at all. So I went to some of the member sites. The Alliance for Aging only gives the consequentialist argument. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists doesn't provide anything additional except a statement, without any specifics, that the research can be done ethically. The American Society for Cell Biology shows some recognition of the complexities of the ethical issues, but as far as I could find provides no answers. And so on. The best page I could find is the International Society for Stem Cell Research, which had an entire ethics page. It provides the only consequentialist argument, but points to some resources for looking further into the debate. All of the pro resources I looked at consider the matter from a consequentialist perspective.
This is by no means a complete survey; but it shows, I think, that advocates are relying way too much on the argument that the research is promising; this would not, as far as I can see, address the concerns of people who are coming to it with ethical worries. It's an argument, I think, that does have the advantage that it would persuade a lot of people who don't have any particular view of the matter; it is poorly conceived, however, for persuading people who are concerned because of things they've heard that would put the ethics of the research in doubt on a non-consequentialist ground, and they leave open the possibility of being challenged to give a precise account of the consequences that are doing the justifying work. Despite the fact that it would be clearly relevant, for example, and despite the fact that the institutions listed by CAMR would be the best source for this sort of information, it was immensely difficult to find any clear information about the processes involved in stem cell research. Since these are clearly at issue, and since ignorance about (e.g.) how one collects embryonic stem cells for research can scarcely help the advocates' argument, I find this lack of any attempt to explain them seriously perplexing.
One of the tricky things about argument in the public arena is that whether arguments and challenges are reasonable depends in part on how well information is being circulated by the side that is challenged; and while I sympathize with Myers' frustration, as far as I can see the plain fact is that stem cell advocates simply have not been making accessible the sorts of arguments and information that would potentially make the challenge he's frustrated with unreasonable. If they are making the arguments at all, they're hard to find, and need to be made more accessible. If they're not making the arguments, they need to start making them.
