Ron Reagan provided a down to earth speech to the Democratic Convention. I caught it over the weekend and was impressed overall. My problem is that stem cell research is rather experimental at the moment, so the futuristic promises Reagan praised are just that. Still, the promise of government sponsored research adds to the overall optimism that was a consistent theme.
Science is a bit of a sore point for this administration. It has done some good things in the area of AIDS funding, though not quite as much as its rhetoric suggests. The fact the Majority Leader of the Senate is a doctor seems almost besides the point, notwithstanding some hopes that it would be otherwise. And, I have already spoken "of the Bush administration deliberately ignoring or distorting scientific results for purely ideological purposes," [link fixed to clarify authorship] including editing reports submitted to Congress for political reasons. John Dean in his latest book mentioned how secrecy infected science policy as well.
Reagan suggested that opposition to stem cell research arises from a combination of unsavory political maneuvering and honest moral beliefs. The former was suggested by the misleading compromise put forth by the President on what cell lines to use, a compromise that many failed to see as reflective of his moral concerns over the matter. It is related to hesistance to put certain facts in textbooks in some areas because of fear of controversy, not out of belief the material is wrong.
And when opposition is truly based on moral concerns, we must remember that: "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." And, yes, sometimes the belief deals with a matter that should be a concern of the many, let's say fetal experimentalization. So, there are lines to be drawn, but given the destruction of cells required for in vitro fertilization (without such controversy), the line here is badly drawn by this administration.
So, though the speech dealt with a minor area that is somewhat obscure in its likely effects, the broader principles involved here are great indeed. A better understanding and respect for science, a more consistent balancing that matches a more mainstream acceptance of the lines to be drawn, and properly dealing with someone for which there is clear evidence of partisan perversion of science.
And in a broader sense, a more nuanced moral understanding of the world we live in, including not limiting the "health and well being of the many" for the beliefs of the few. Not just scientific research, but abortion, condom use, euthansia, homosexuality, medicinal marijuana, and a lot more is at stake. A simplistic view of public values, one that all too often interferes with the rights of others with a contrasting moral belief system that deserves equal respect in this nation (and sometimes internationally as well), mixed with partisan politics is just one more reason to vote the current bunch out of power.
[I think the Convention overdid it on the military and values themes to some degree, especially for someone who is for peace and uncomfortable about mixing government and religion. Values need not be deistic, of course, but the mixture of the two was present. And, at what point does the "I am my brother's keeper" rhetoric lead to the wrongful limitation of liberty because it is the "right" thing to do? Care must be taken, even if the choice in November is clear. The latter point is why even many libertarian minded individuals are supporting Kerry, even if some are depressed they have to do so.]