Stem Cell Avarice

This non-story front page story in the San Francisco Chronicle proves many of the points I have been making about our roiling biotech controversies for the last several years:

1. The headline, "Backers to Push Stem Cell Issue Across Country," as if this is news, is laughable. Big Biotech and its allies have been spending tens of millions annually in a well oiled propaganda campaign to not only smash moral objections to human cloning (for example, by redefining terms), but also to induce society to pour billions in tax payer dollars to fund their research--and that doesn't include the value of the bounteous free propaganda happily published by BB's compliant allies in the mainstream media.

2. The story claims the "controversial new field is starved for funds because of restrictions imposed by the Bush administration," as if that were a simple fact. Starved for funds? Let's see: in 2005 alone, the Feds paid out $137 million in human and non human embryonic stem cell NIH grants. It would be more but the NIH did not receive sufficient qualified grant applications. California has earmarked $3 billion over ten years for cloning and ESCR research. Other states are throwing in tens of millions a year. The fact is, Big Biotech and university research centers want a blank check. However much money they receive, it will apparently never be enough.

3. John Robertson, a bioethicist from Texas, suggests that embryonic stem cell "as a fundamental civil liberty." I have been warning that the groundwork is being laid for a claim that there is a "right to research," in the U.S. Constitution. If the courts find this heretofore unknown right lurking between the lines of the constitution, it would destroy the ability of government to reasonably regulate science.

4. Robert Klein, the head of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine hit the nail on the head when he said that ESCR can become "a surrogate for science in a war between science and ideology." In other words, the debate is much bigger than the sum of its parts. For the religionists of scientism, it is about elevating their utilitarian values to a place of dominance in society. In the end, that is precisely what this debate is really all about.

5. The story also worries that outside small, committed communities of activists, most voters are not really engaged in the issue. I think that is about right. Many voters don't think they can understand it. Also, the popular distrust of science seems to be growing precisely because the field has become so politicized. Indeed, I believe that people are beginning to perceive science as nothing more than a mere special interest. If I am right, the Science Establishment will only have itself to blame.