Must we choose between Science and Ideology?

Our president recently reversed the ban on embryonic stem cell research, saying in effect, that we should not be forced to choose between science and ideology. But is this really a helpful or logical distinction? Are scientists collecting stem cells somehow exempt from ideological assumptions and opinions?

The president's false rhetorical disctinction between science and ideology does not erase the moral question of whether or not killing a human embryo is wrong. Scripture teaches that life is sacred from conception until death (Psalm 139), and it is a clear fact that human embryos must be destroyed in order to obtain embryonic stem cells for research purposes. Now don't misread my intent. I have a close family member who has paralysis from a spinal injury almost 30 years ago, and I would like to see him healed more than anyone else. I long and pray for the day when he will receive his glorified body in heaven.

So, under the guise of the "progress of science", the argument to kill human embryos and use their stem cells usually takes two forms:

1. "We are doing this in order to heal others"- This sounds very noble and compassionate, but it is really a utilitarian ethic. How can we do the greatest good for the greatest number of people? Well, one way is to simply use others to obtain healing for some whom we consider more important. The problem is, how are those who are most in need of healing selected? Is it simply the loudest voices and the ones with money who can get the treatment? What criteria do we use to decide who deserves treatment if a potential cure is found? At some point the criteria for who deserves to live at the expense of another person comes down to whoever is in power. The embryo has no voice of its own. The utilitarian ethic is always convenient for those who are in a position to make the decision and benefit from it. But Christ teaches that it is those who have no power or influence to make a decision who are the ones who need to be protected: the poor, the orphan, the widow, the leper. The argument of one elected official who said "my religion teaches me to heal" reveals two things. It reveals that their hope is based only in this life (which is sad), and two, it actually flies in the face of the president's dinstinction between science and ideology. Of course we all want healing! The question is at what cost? The existential question of suffering must be given a theological and ideological grid before we begin manipulating cells in the laboratory. No one begins experimenting with human beings without first in some fashion calcualting the cost on those same human beings. When that cost is the same life we are trying to save, it is too much.

2. The other argument for expanding stem cell research is "these are embryos that would have been destroyed anyway." This argument takes the lesser of two evils approach. This person is admitting that they know destroying embryos is wrong, but they are "making the most of a bad situation" Sort of like, "Well if they were going to be destroyed anyway, why not use some of them for "good" purposes?" You could imagine someone arguing in the same way, "Well, if a person is going to die, we can use their live organs for someone else." But the difference between stem cell research and a deceased organ donor is a huge one. One subject used for healing has already died, (and has consented to donate their organs before their death); the other subject (the embryo) is living, and has not consented. The "some of them would have been destroyed anyway" argument simply admits the value of the embryo in the first place! The person who argues this way would surely say, "Well of course we would not destroy all the embryos!"

So then my next question is, "How do you determine the value of one embryo over another?" The person who implants three embryos and lets three sit in the laboratory for research has already made an ideological choice. Their choice is not absent from ideology simply because they were at a doctor's office or were dressed in a lab coat.

Unfortunately, with the case of embryonic stem cells, the moral and ideological question does not go away simply because one is "conducting scientific research". Portraying people with strong religious convictions as "unscientific" is a stereotype our culture buys into, and which is eaten up by the mainstream media. To top it off, the scientific establishment in this country has simply chosen an atheistic approach.

The danger is that in the end, science and technology become the one's religion. We all end up choosing to worship something. When the "progress of science" becomes your god, it comes down to ideology after all.