Collections of Cells and Federal Funds

I read two brief items today about President Bush's veto of legislation on federal funding of stem cell research. Both were pretty good pieces, but neither quite lays out my complete view on the matter.

Michael Tanner's article Does the Senate Vote on Stem Cell Research Matter? focuses attention on the fact that stem cell research is not actually illegal, and is actually moving ahead in the private sector without federal funding. He gives good examples of such projects that are going on now, and so argues that the veto doesn't matter. Worse, he notes, this bill and the veto are politicizing science:

"Stem-cell researchers have become just one more special interest at the federal trough. And, as such, the coming debate is a perfect example of how science becomes politicized when government money is involved.

Instead of a serious scientific debate about the merits and drawbacks of a promising new therapy, one side will treat us to extravagant claims from celebrity spokespeople implying that miracle cures for everything from spinal injuries to Alzheimer's disease are just around the corner. The other side will downplay studies that show promise from embryonic stem-cell research, while overselling results from adult stem cells. In reality, most scientists believe that embryonic stem cells may eventually help people with Parkinson's disease, muscular dystrophy and spinal injuries, among other conditions. But widespread application of this research is years, likely decades, away."

And he is correct as far as that goes.

But he is very wrong to contend that the veto doesn't matter. And this is where the second item I read today comes into play. David Holcberg and Alex Epstein wrote a very short item in the form of a Letter to the Editor, which over at Principles in Practice goes by the title Bush's Opposition to Embryonic Stem Cell Research Is Anti-Life. They note:

"Contrary to the claims of Bush and others who oppose embryonic stem cell research, embryos destroyed in the process of extracting stem cells are not human beings. These embryos are smaller than a grain of sand, and consist of, at most, a few hundred undifferentiated cells. They have no body or body parts. They do not see, hear, feel, or think. While these early embryos have the potential to become human beings—they are not actual human beings.

To restrict the freedom of scientists to use clusters of cells to do such research on the basis of religious dogma is to violate their rights—as well as the rights of all who would contribute to, invest in, or benefit from this research."

I wouldn't say that scientists who don't receive federal funding are having their rights violated (though this issue is muddied by the long history of government funding of science, which violates all our rights as taxpayers since it is outside the proper scope of government action).

But I think their basic point is a critical one: collections of cells aren't people, they don't have the moral status granted by personhood, and so don't have a right to life (moral or legal). I argue that personhood and rights is based on our rational faculty. But even if you argue for personhood and rights based on something broader (the ability to feel pain, etc.), minute collections of cells still wouldn't qualify. They only qualify via either an arbitrary intrinsicist view of personhood as conveyed by "being human" (having the human DNA), or by the view from religion that personhood status is conferred at conception because that is when a soul (or something) enters the one or very few cells that then exist. Bush's view, from what I understand, is the latter view -- and so, as Holcberg and Epstein write, this "shows once again his commitment to impose his religious agenda on all Americans."

So while I quibble over whether scientists rights are being violated as a result of this veto, I would agree with them that this veto definitely does "matter" (contra Tanner's implication). Religious views (faith-based, mystical, supernatural, etc.) should not be involved in setting public policy or law.

However, Holcberg and Epstein don't go on to say or even imply anything about federal funding of science as such. Knowing a bit about their philosophical positions, I assume they are against it, but you couldn't tell that from their brief editorial -- in fact, one would conclude the opposite. (To be fair, they likely don't discuss this because of space limitations, given the format of their letter.)

So here is my view: given that this legislation was not actually authorizing new funding for scientific research, but (as I understand it) was merely lifting the ban on allocating federal (taxpayer) funds already budgeted for scientific research towards stem cell research... the legislation was a good thing, and the veto was wrong. I would be against, however, federal funding of scientific research in general (as I'm pretty sure Holcberg and Epstein are as well). So any bill that was introducing new funds for scientific research -- whether for stem cell research or any other kind of research -- would get a thumbs down from me. And this is because such research is simply outside the scope of legitimate government action -- because it has nothing to do with the protection of individual rights. It should be left to the private sector, where based on Tanner's examples, it seems it is proceeding anyway.