Science’s STEMpede: A few more thoughts on human embryonic stem cell research

This week and next, the Center for Bioethics and Culture is running a two-part essay of mine that summarizes some of my recent thoughts on the politics, science and ethics (or lack thereof) of stem cell research in America.

Check out Part 1 here, on Utility vs. Moral Reality… sign up for the newsletter too! It’s a weekly dose of thoughtfulness about the most recent in bioethics.

Part 2 will be a closer look at the crossroads of science and ethics… and some considerations of the “false choice” or false dichotomy that we’re presented. In particular, I’m sadly skeptical that we’ve solved any such dichotomy. I’ll be arguing that while no dichotomy need exist, the language of politics (even when it specifically calls out “false choices”) is unfortunately incapable of uniting these two in a meaningful way, and I wonder if it can ever do anything else but triumph one or the other.

Here are some of the writings that I’ve been forming these thoughts from:

Use, Abuse, Personhood

This Is Happening Friends

The Masters are Finally Free!

And So It Begins (Thoughts on the Executive Order and Memo)

All Too Familiar: That Hideous Strength and the Abolition of Man

I’m really thankful for the CBC’s unceasing dedication to being a thoughtful, unitive force among such divisive issues. Thanks Jennifer!

All too Familiar: That Hideous Strength and the Abolition of Man

How nice a literary connection to all this political talk.

The N.I.C.E. is Great Britain’s National Institute for Co-ordinated Experiments, from the mind of C.S. Lewis in the conclusion of his Space Trilogy, That Hideous Strength (THS).

“The N.I.C.E. was the first-fruits of that constructive fusion between the state and the laboratory, on which so many thoughtful people base there hopes of a better world. It was to be free from almost all the tiresome restraints – “red tape” was the word its supporters used – which have hitherto hampered research in this country.” – THS, p. 23

As the drama unfolds, the N.I.C.E. proves to be the furthest thing from its acronym’s meaning, marked by media deception, violence and ulterior motives – bent on progress and control – and all nicely stated in the euphemism of “benefit to humankind.” This is starting to sound kinda familiar.

As I re-read this description today, I realize how visionary Lewis actually was. Inasmuch as That Hideous Strength is a literary allusion to his Abolition of Man (TAoM), his story is all too prophetic. As the Italian scientist Filostrato remarks to the misguided Mark Studdock regarding the philosophical underpinnings of the N.I.C.E. and the modern scientific community,

“All that talk about the power of Man over Nature-Man in the abstract-is only for the canaglia [Italian for "scoundrel"]. You know as well as I do that Man’s power over Nature means the power of some men over other men with Nature as the instrument.” – THS, p. 178

And from The Abolition of Man:

“‘Man’s conquest of Nature’ is an expression often used to describe the progress of applied science (p. 53)… In what sense is Man the possessor of increasing power over Nature?… From this point of view, what we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument (p. 54-55)… Man’s conquest of Nature, if the dreams of some scientific planners are realized, mean the rule of a few hundreds of men over billions upon billions of men (p. 58)… For the power of Man to make himself what he pleases means, as we have seen, the power of some men to make other men what they please (p. 59).”

And:

“But the man-moulders of the new age will be armed with the powers of an omnicompetent state and an irresistible scientific technique: we shall get at last a race of conditioners who really can cut out all posterity in what shape they please (p. 60)… Man’s final conquest has proved to be the abolition of Man (p. 64).”

And are the conditioners – the omnicompetent and scientific, the powerful and political – exempt from this abolition? No:

“Nature, untrammeled by values, rules the Conditioners and, through them, all humanity. Man’s conquest of Nature turns out… to be Nature’s conquest of Man (p. 68)… As soon as we take the final step of reducing our species to the level of mere Nature, the whole process is stultified, for this time the being who stood to gain and the being who has been sacrificed are one and the same (p. 71)… It is in Man’s power to treat himself as a mere ‘natural object’ and his own judgements of value as raw material for scientific manipulation to alter at will (p. 72)… Man’s conquest of himself means simply the rule of the Conditioners over the conditioned human material, the world of post-humanity which, some knowingly and some unknowingly, nearly all men in all nations are at present labouring to produce (p. 75).”

He wrote TAoM in 1944, during the writing of THS. And it applies today, March 9, 2009, in a worrisome way.

Have we a situation in which Nature is untrammeled by values? One in which ethics and the best of virtuous philosophy and theology no longer have any guiding hand or sway or influence over science? One in which we’ve reduced ourselves to mere Nature and raw material? I hope not. For I value the truly human.

But what would a “truly human” situation look like? One in which we acknowledge the personhood of the other, and rightly distinguish them from material to be manipulated. One in which we speak as “I” to “Thou” and not merely as “I” to “It” (nod to Martin Buber).

“The regenerate science which I have in mind would not do even to minerals and vegetables what modern science threatens to do to man himself. When it explained it would not explain away. When if spoke of the parts it would remember the whole. While studying the It it would not lose… the Thou-situation (p. 79).”

I fear in all this talk of the parts (stem cells), we have, in fact, forgotten the whole (the human… the embryo).

Closer to the Earth: Food and Agriculture

I have spent very little of my time on this earth near, around, or on a farm. No regrets about my place up until now, but I’ve been thinking about being a little closer to the earth… whatever it takes to destroy the tyranny of the clock over my life.

I have a dilemma.

Nicholas Kristof (NYT Op-Ed) quoted food and agricultural writer Michael Pollan today:

“Even if you don’t think agriculture is a high priority, given all the other problems we face, we’re not going to make progress on the issues Obama campaigned on — health care, climate change and energy independence — unless we reform agriculture.”

I’d heard of Pollan on NPR several months ago. Now The Omnivore’s Dilemma is on my X-mas list. Given my inexperience and lack of knowledge about agriculture and “the answers” to health care, climate change and energy “in”dependence, I’m not going to offer any criticism of the quote above, but I’m thinking about this, and swimming upstream to agriculture isn’t such a bad idea.

Sexy Berry. Actually, he's pretty old and quite the monogamyte. Respect!

Wendell Berry has plenty to say about farming and food as well. He’s a Kentucky Aristotelian who raised tobacco, lives on a farm, supports localism (not the surfing kind of localism that Santa Cruz suffers from), doesn’t own a computer and scribbles/types pithy commentary in wonderful essays such as those found in Sex, Economy, Freedom and Community – maybe more to come on Berry in the near future. I’ve so enjoyed his sharply loving sarcasm and criticism.

Civic Doodie < Real Hope and Real Change

Done and done. I have done my civic doodie, you have done yours.

My last post probably has my reader or two wondering – are you now undone? What ever will you do? I thought some follow up is due.

I was so close to going Nader. But I ended up voting for for McCain and the pretty lady. Not because I think he’d make a great president. I don’t know him. Neither do you. I voted that way because it was our best shot at keeping Obama out. Harsh, I know, but not because I don’t think he’d make a great president. I don’t know him. And (just a head check for some of you) neither do you.

Now, trust me, I’m jaded. But I’m not too discouraged about our decision for Obama. Why? Real hope and real change. But sorry friends… ain’t talking about hope and change of the Obama mint. Obama’s message of “hope” and “change” have kept me a little bothered for the past several months/years/milliseconds that he’s been campaigning.

Real Hope
First, “hope” – I’d argue from history and centuries of thought – finds its root as a Judeo-Christian virtue, not a civic or political virtue. But we’re Americans, so we appropriate a good thing, take it over, eat it, use it, reform it, genetically engineer it… rinse and repeat… slash-and-burn.

Real hope is different. It’s not individual. It’s not political. It’s not public. It’s not for slogans or campaigns. It’s not for homo sapiens. It’s not from the state.

It’s personal. It’s family. It’s community. It’s from God. Therefore, it’s for humans.

I’m not a religious secessionist. Quite the opposite. I want to engage with people. But the hope available to us isn’t available apart from an acknowledgement and glorification of God. Without the Triune God, you might get optimism, but not real hope.

Real Change
Change in and of itself isn’t good or bad. Change is nothing without it’s content. It’s nothing without knowing your start and end points. Time A. Time B. Evaluate. That’s what Cultural Velocity is about. Real change happens all the time, all over the place. Incessantly. (Delta sign.) But not immediately. Because change just is mediation. Time mediates all change. And alot of change is unimportant. It’s not so uncommon or specific as real hope. But change for the better – toward goodness and virtue – that, I find, is important. And less common.

God doesn’t change. Precisely because God is immediate.

For us, nothing is immediate. We’ll always change. The point is toward what?

Acquiring Real Hope and Real Change
I’m skeptical of Obama’s promise of hope and change not because I don’t want real hope and real (good) change. But I’m done relying on a politician to do the work for me. Obama will most likely not stand for the weakest and most vulnerable of Americans. That’s his promise.

But we can. It will require real change in the direction of personal, family and community virtue. This is our responsibility. Not just the president’s.

I didn’t vote Obama because of his pro-abortion extremism. Too much life lost. Too much unknown potential. Too much ungrievable grief. The poorest, most vulnerable among us disregarded for the welfare of those who already enjoy life and breath and second chances.

But he’ll be our president on January 20, 2009. It’ll be another day for the rest of us.

So much for civic doodie. I want to really change toward real hope.

Obama’s Abortion Extremism

Friends, please take some well-spent time to read Robert George’s “Obama’s Abortion Extremism”…

George’s article sums it up for me. Legitimate guy with a legitimate job. Well reasoned, well written and full of references. Obama did most of the work for him, really.

Obama’s aggressively pro-abortion posture should catch the attention of multi-issue voters. I know Obama talks good. I know he’s got some good economic and health care policy. I like that stuff too. But you won’t find Obama’s real policies about abortion or the embryo on his web site. That’s lurking. And weighing as many issues as I can, I cannot vote for Obama knowing that he is so supportive of abortion. Unconscionable.

Now it’s late in the game, but I figure, if you, my dear and lovely reader (wait! don’t go! I was going to make espresso!!), are going to vote for Obama, you should consider the implications of that vote. Because you’re going to get everything. Not just the economic policy and health care solution (again, I’m favorable toward it); you get a man who, at best, will do nothing in his power to uphold simple laws against taking human life and at worst is determined to perpetuate abortion.

Hence, I’m stuck. I don’t find a great friend in McCain either (for reasons other than abortion). Curse you, two-party tyranny. And Barr and Nader are… well, Barr and Nader. Who, friends, is the least of all evil? God help me.

Now, the floodgates, friends. You will hear more from me about this: I am so effing tired of media fog, celebrity vomit and political wool. God help us.

Do check out my buddy Josh’s thoughts on American politics from 5,898 miles away. Insightful. I especially like these thoughts:

I have long said that one of my most important characteristics for a president is, well, character. But, I’m not so delusional as to believe that I can really know the truth about these candidates. Just about everything we know about them is spun, one way or another. So, to be honest, I’d mostly given up on voting for a president whose character I believed in.

Oh. And a hearty “Yes” on 8. (I’m just sleevin’ it on out today, aren’t I?)

Beijing’s Bodacious Buildings

Buildings in Beijing

Originally uploaded by evan_rosa

The New York Times recently published an article about the recent building projects in Beijing, in preparation for the Olympics.

This is just an example of how important buildings are in our lives. These buildings have meaning. There is intention in every bolt, every girder, every slab.

From the article:

Critics have incessantly described these high-profile projects as bullish expressions of the nation’s budding global primacy. Yet these buildings are not simply blunt expressions of power. Like the great monuments of 16th-century Rome or 19th-century Paris, China’s new architecture exudes an aura that has as much to do with intellectual ferment as economic clout.

Each building, in its own way, embodies an intense struggle over the meaning of public space in the new China. And although at times terrifying in their aggressive scale, they also reflect the country’s effort to give shape to an emerging national identity.

And…

This sprawling web has completely reshaped Beijing since the city was awarded the Olympic Games seven years ago. It is impossible not to think of the enormous public works projects built in the United States at midcentury, when faith in technology’s promise seemed boundless. Who would have guessed then that this faith would crumble for Americans, paving the way for a post-Katrina New Orleans just as the dream was being reborn in 21st-century China at 10 times the scale?

Reshaping. Yes, a city is literally reshaped. But take “city” in a slightly more personified definition (a community of human persons), and we’ve got a metaphor. But this one’s a juicy metaphor. People design structures – we shape them. But then, almost in an act of mutiny, the buildings take on the power to shape us, and reshape us, and again and again.

I think maybe the most deep-seated shaping comes in a structure’s reassurance that “I’m executed perfectly and purely – able to hold you up and shelter you. The technology in my blueprints and innermost design promise you a whole new world of technological advance.” It’s clear that more and more of our other technologies whisper – or scream – this same promise, but our manly, mammoth constructions certainly make for an easily identifiable example.

And though I agree with the author that “these buildings are not simply blunt expressions of power” and that “China’s new architecture exudes an aura that has as much to do with intellectual ferment as economic clout,” it’s just because the buildings have such an intellectual force and influence that they are so powerful.

I wonder what effect Beijing’s structures will have on the world.

Now, maybe this is a little glib to mention such a significant event in such brief passing, but our country’s best example of the power of a building (and you must already know what I’m referring to, thus proving its power) is the attack on and fall of the World Trade Center towers in September of 2001. (I saw Ground Zero for the first time three weeks ago on a business trip.)

In the end, I think it’s the intention, the intellect and the identity (i.e., the deepest meanings) behind those tons of bricks that will crush us.