Revelation of the Nerds ... The Religion of Stem-Cell Research.
By William Saletan - Slate

Posted Tuesday, Aug. 10, 2004, at 4:11 PM PT

The hot new issue of 2004 was born in a lab dish. As Slate's Timothy Noah
documented last week, "stem cells" were mentioned 20 times at the Democratic
National Convention, more than unemployment and abortion combined. John Kerry
is raising the issue at practically every campaign stop. Polls suggest it could attract
enough independents and Republicans to decide the election. Pundits are amazed.
How has science trumped politics, ideology, and religion as a campaign issue?

I'll tell you how: Science has become political, ideological, and religious.

The conceit of the stem-cell movement is just the opposite. "Here in America, we
don't sacrifice science for ideology," Kerry declared Saturday as he devoted his
weekly radio address to stem cells for the second time this summer. The Kerry
campaign charged that President Bush "has politicized science" and promised that
Kerry would choose "scientific research over politics." In a prime-time speech at the
Democratic convention, Ron Reagan, son of the late president, noted that
opponents of embryonic stem-cell research, which entails the destruction of
microscopic embryos, regard such destruction as "tantamount to murder." Reagan
concluded, "Their belief is just that, an article of faith, and they are entitled to it. But
it does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health
and well-being of the many."

For years, stem-cell researchers were indeed scientific, apolitical, and irreligious.
That's why they had no juice. On Aug. 9, 2001, when Bush authorized federal
funding of embryonic stem-cell research but limited it to cell lines created before
that date, there wasn't much outcry for more freedom. So, the stem-cell lobby went
to work. Patients whose diseases might be cured got organized. Biotech companies
geared up. Hollywood big-shots lobbied Congress. Strategists boiled the issue
down to handy slogans.

The stem-cell movement has become political. "Three years ago, the president
enacted a far-reaching ban on stem-cell research," Kerry asserted in his radio
address. Repeating a pledge made by Hillary Clinton at the Democratic convention,
Kerry promised twice that he would "lift the ban on stem-cell research." But no such
ban exists. Embryonic stem-cell research is unrestricted in the private sector. State
and local governments can fund it as they wish. The federal government spent
nearly $200 million on adult stem-cell research last year and nearly $25 million on
research involving the roughly 20 approved embryonic lines. As today's Washington
Post observes, what Bush actually did was "to allow, for the first time, the use of
federal funds" for embryonic stem-cell research.

Why does Kerry call it a "ban on stem-cell research" instead of a ban on federal
funding of embryonic stem-cell lines derived after Aug. 9, 2001? Because the
shorter phrase, while scientifically inaccurate in four egregious ways, is more
politically effective.

The stem-cell movement has become ideological. One scientist who is organizing
his colleagues for Kerry told the Post that stem-cell research has become an "icon"
for broader complaints about Bush's policies. He added that his group has adopted
"ideology trumps science" as its theme. A Democratic political strategist told
American Demographics, "It's more than just stem-cell research—it's the symbolism
of announcing a plan to eradicate major diseases, and part of the Baby Boomers'
health care crisis."

To protect the symbolism, facts must be shaded. Kerry's pollsters must phrase the
destruction of embryos in the past tense to dissociate this unpleasant necessity
from the benefits of stem-cell research. The research must be insulated from
comparative cost-benefit analysis by asking voters, through ballot measures, to
designate billions of dollars exclusively for stem-cell work instead of other medical
studies. California is now pursuing this; House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
wants other states to follow suit. Any limit on stem-cell funding must be vilified as
immoral. Stem cells pose a choice "between true compassion and mere ideology,"
Ron Reagan declared in his convention speech. In a statement yesterday, John
Edwards warned critics, "It is against our national character to look the other way
when people are suffering."

Above all, the stem-cell movement has become religious. According to a poll taken
in June by Results for America, a pro-stem-cell group, none of the diseases most
susceptible to stem-cell therapy touches more than 17 percent of Americans (by
affecting them, a family member, or a close friend). But throw in Alzheimer's
disease, and the number leaps to 28 percent. Seventy-two percent of respondents
say they would be more likely "to support stem-cell research if you knew that
experts think it may hold the key to curing the Alzheimer's disease that afflicted
President Reagan." Kerry's pollsters have seen the same effect. When they tell
voters that "stem-cell research is being used by scientists trying to find cures for
diseases such as Alzheimer's disease" as well as Parkinson's and diabetes, 69
percent support the research.

The trouble is, the Alzheimer's hype isn't true. On June 10, the Post's Rick Weiss
reported that "given the lack of any serious suggestion that stem cells themselves
have practical potential to treat Alzheimer's, the Reagan-inspired tidal wave of
enthusiasm [for stem cell research] stands as an example of how easily a modest
line of scientific inquiry can grow in the public mind to mythological proportions. It is
a distortion that some admit is not being aggressively corrected by scientists." Why
don't scientists dispel the myth? "People need a fairy tale," NIH researcher Ronald
McKay told Weiss. "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively
simple to understand."

Two days after Weiss' article appeared, Kerry used his radio address to peddle the
Alzheimer's fairy tale. He spoke of "the limitless potential of our science" and of
things unseen: "the cures that are there, if only [scientists] are allowed to look."

He emphasized the power of will, hope, and belief in the absence of evidence.

There is a moment after you get the call from a doctor that you or a loved one must
face a disease like Alzheimer's where you decide that it can't mean the end—that
you won't let it. So in our own way, we become researchers and scientists. We
become advocates and friends, and we reach for a cure that cannot—that must
not–be too far away. Some call this denial. But I'm sure that Nancy Reagan—the
wife of an eternal optimist—calls it hope. … Millions share this hope, and it is
because of their commitment that stem-cell research has brought us closer to
finding ways to treat Alzheimer's and many other diseases.

A month later, on the eve of her convention, Pelosi called stem-cell therapy "the
biblical power to cure." At the convention, Ron Reagan likened it to "magic." Reps.
Diana DeGette of Colorado and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin trumpeted its
"medical miracles." Rep. James Langevin of Rhode Island, a paraplegic, proclaimed
his "strong faith that we will find a cure." "I believe one day I will walk again," said
Langevin, adding, "Embryonic stem cell research offers new dreams to so many
people." Democrats even engraved the myth in their platform: "Stem-cell therapy
offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses—from
Alzheimer's to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson's."

In his radio address this weekend, Kerry blamed Bush's stem-cell restrictions for
"shutting down some of the most promising work to prevent, treat and cure
Alzheimer's." With the salesmanship of a faith healer, Kerry dangled promises no
responsible scientist would countenance. "At this very moment, some of the most
pioneering cures and treatments are right at our fingertips, but because of the stem-
cell ban, they remain beyond our reach," said Kerry. "To those who pray each day
for cures that are now beyond our reach—I want you to know that help is on the
way. I want you to hold on, and keep faith, because come next January, when John
Edwards and I are sworn into office … we're going to lift the ban on stem-cell
research."

Kerry's appeals to faith and prayer don't end there. He asks voters to believe, on
the same spiritual basis, that science will create ethical boundaries for itself. "We
must look to the future not with fear but with the hope and the faith that advances in
medicine will advance our best values," he pleaded in a recent speech promoting
stem-cell research. "I have full faith that our scientists will go forward with a moral
compass," he added. All we must do, he advised, is "pursue the limitless potential of
science—and trust that we can use it wisely."

I want to have faith, John. I want to hope and dream. I want to believe in the magic
and the miracles and the power of prayer. But if you want to preserve trust in
science, stick to the evidence.

William Saletan is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of Bearing Right:
How Conservatives Won the Abortion War

SOURCE: Slate
http://slate.msn.com/id/2104983/

* * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn