Politics and Science

by Margaret McLean

Suppose the voter information pamphlet sent in anticipation of Super Tuesday had contained only arguments against the ballot propositions-would we think that was fair? Of course not. We want both sides of the argument about transportation or the state budget in order to make a reasoned decision.

The same is true when we’re crafting science policy. Ethical deliberation about science requires more than a cursory understanding of many disciplines, some of which hadn't even been invented when many of us sat in high school science class. We need to trust that, in making decisions about these areas, our leaders have consulted the best research and that all sides of an issue have been carefully considered before proceeding with an ethically justifiable course of action. But this does not seem to be the case at with federal science policy under the Bush administration. Last month, more than 60 top American scientists—20 Nobel laureates—claimed that the administration had methodically distorted scientific fact on the environment, health, biomedical research, and nuclear weapons in the service of politics.

The scientists believe that the administration has "misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies." They charged the administration with censoring and repressing reports by government scientists, stacking policy committees, disbanding panels that provide unwelcome advice, and, in some instances, refusing to ask for independent scientific expertise.

And, as if to prove the scientists' point about committee stacking, over the weekend, President Bush abruptly dismissed two members of his Council on Bioethics—scientist Elizabeth Blackburn and moral philosopher William F. May. Blackburn and May were purportedly supporters of allowing some embryo research, a position contrary to that of conservative members of the Council. On hearing of her dismissal, Blackburn a well-respected UCSF biologist, speculated that Bush is "stacking the council with the compliant."

Whatever one’s view on the stem cell debate, good ethical thinking is never the result of compliance. It involves rigorous consideration of possible actions, not capitulation to a prefabricated conclusion, political or otherwise. It involves the willingness to hear something new and perhaps to change one's mind.

Blackburn and May were immediately replaced by three appointees—all of whom, it appears, possess conservative credentials and none of whom replace Blackburn's scientific nor May's ethical expertise. One wonders why May, one of five ethicists who serve on the 18-member Bioethics Council, is being replaced by a political scientist and not a moral philosopher. The other two newcomers are a neurosurgeon and a professor of government-curiously not a scientist.

Just as we want the best cardiologist diagnosing our funny heartbeat, we want the best scientists telling us about basic research on proteins, genes, cells, and tissues. We also want the best ethicists asking questions about consequences, rights, and justice in considering the medical application of scientific research. Politics ought not matter; accurate science and laying all the facts and options on the table must.

Feb 2004

For more ethical perspectives, click here.