Hail Science!

President Obama authorized funding for federal stem cell research today - a move which his supporters are hailing as a victory for science over the vagaries of political ideology.

But is it?

Embryonic stem cell research involves fertilizing a human embryo for the express purpose of harvesting stem cells. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research would point to the moment that a human egg is fertilized by a human sperm as the moment life begins. The natural progression of an embryo, without any outside addition, is a fully grown person. That's a medical and scientific fact.

Is the embryo life? Well, that's less clear. Like the origin of the universe or the cause of the dinosaurs' extinction, it's a matter of scientific debate. As anyone who appreciates science can tell you, the answers to many questions tend to change from generation to generation. But if you do the research and you accept fertilization as the creation of life, then it's a logical conclusion that the living entity has a set of rights. You might say it's a truth we hold to be self-evident.

What is becoming more clear is that there are a growing number of alternatives to embryonic stem cell research - so the discussion over whether or not the research sacrifices human life is one we don't have to worry about anymore. Or we wouldn't, if the Obama administration hadn't stepped in.

So if embryonic stem cell research isn't necessary, and only raises difficult ethical questions that can be avoided with equally useful alternatives, why open the can of worms? The answer lies in the memo which accompanies the executive edict. Outside of announcing another Detroit-esque plan to fund something which is outdated and controversial, Obama takes several thinly-veiled shots at his Republican predecessor.

In other words, it's more about politics than science.

Hail Science!

Artist Jonathan Keats has built a "Temple of Science." His inspiration was a discussion at an atheists' conference about how science could replace religion.

It isn't hard to find folks who believe science provides absolute truths to the universe and consider religion a crutch for the weak-minded. They obviously aren't junkies of the History Channel's "The Universe" series, which often talks about theory after theory being cast aside. One episode discusses how Albert Einstein believed the universe was static, even though his own theories and measurements indicated that it is expanding.

In other words, if you had 100 scientists on the deck of the Titanic, they may not all agree to get in a lifeboat. So if religion was banned and science took it's place, the new world might not be as different as you think.

Gaian dictator?

"When will people learn: Democracy doesn't work!" - Homer Simpson (a Barack Obama voter)

A bunch of scientists got together and determined that a single multi-billionaire could probably fund a project to combat climate change by spraying sulfur particles in the atmosphere. It is, of course, controversial even among scientist; some theorize that this "solution" may destroy the ozone layer. ("Egon, this reminds me of that time you tried to drill a hole in your head.")

But beyond the technical challenges, talk turned to what practical issues would arise in building a global consensus for any such undertaking. As New Scientist correspondent Fred Pearce reported:

"Some enthusiasts for geo-engineering - or eco-hacking, as some have taken to calling it - said we might one day have to ignore democratic niceties in order to get the job done. "

Democratic processes are not "niceties" - they are government systems that prevent oppression.

Environmentalists may make the argument that Homer Simpson made - that ignoring the will of the people may be necessary to follow a path that promotes an overall good for mankind. But considering that they can't even agree on which path that is, let's not burn the Constitution just yet.

Buy More Science!

ScienceDebate2008.com is a group of scientific research groups, trade organizations, academic institutions, and similar groups that invites site visitors to submit science-related questions, which are then posed to the candidates. Obama has answered, and drawn glowing praise.

Quoted on Wired.com, ScienceDebate CEO Shawn Otto called his responses “very substantive for this point in the campaign, and surprisingly detailed... A lot of the scientists I've spoken to are pleased with the level of substance and detail.”

What wisdom has Obama dispensed? Let’s look at some of his musings on science policy:
Read the full Q&A session here: http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=40

• "My administration will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade."
  
• "I have proposed programs that, taken together, will increase federal investment in the clean energy research, development, and deployment to $150 billion over ten years."
  
• "As president, I will lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001 through executive order, and I will ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight."

Notice a trend?

Putting aside the question of where the money would come from given the current state of our national finances, where would the money go to? Probably research groups, trade organizations, and academic institutions. I'm sure ScienceDebate2008.com partners, would get their share.

All in the name of science, of course.