With Good Reason Ideology-Free Science?

Jul 7, 2009

Special note: By popular demand, this column will resume publishing on a weekly schedule, rather than monthly.  If you liked the special monthly feature, "While I'm at it," watch for our new blog at www.westchesterinstitute.net, coming soon.

In his March 9, 2009 remarks on the occasion of his executive order allowing broader federal funding for embryo-destructive research, President Obama stated:

This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America... It is about letting scientists ... do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion... It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideolog y.

His message was clear:  the Bush administration, on the issue of stem cell science, had allowed 'ideology' to trump 'facts' and science. And to underscore the message with further dramatic effect, that same day Obama signed a presidential memorandum "directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making."

So the president wants to free scientific pursuits in the U.S. from the grip of 'ideology'.   Genuine ideology, to be sure, is an ersatz form of principled thinking. I don't think anyone should espouse genuine ideology whether that be conservative or liberal. If that's what we mean by ideology, then we can all certainly agree with attempts at 'removing' it -- ideology of any sort -- from scientific endeavor.

But never mind the nuances of the term. And don't hold your breath waiting for team Obama to waste time on philosophical hair splitting.  We -- and they -- know what 'ideology' means in this word game: the firm convictions of millions of Americans who happen to think scientific pursuits should be conducted without imperiling nascent human beings. That, and only that, qualifies as 'ideology' as far as the Obama administration is concerned.    

When those who cling to the standing liberal scientific orthodoxy impose their firmly held convictions on scientific endeavor, well, the administration has other names for that.  They call it 'intellectual independence', 'integrity of scientific endeavor', 'freedom from coercion', and so on.

It is in light of Obama's pursuit of a nationalized science regime sans ideology (e.g. ethical restraints) that we should interpret the June 19 abrupt dismissal of the Bush administration Council on Bioethics.
 
Summarily relieved of their duties without any warning, Council members were understandably stunned.

Dr. Peter Augustine Lawler, appointed to the Council in 2004, recounting his impressions of the dismissal in the Weekly Standard, described a perfunctory memo each member received from a representative of the President which advised the exiting Council members that "President Obama recognizes the value of having a commission of experts in bioethical issues to provide objective and non-ideological bioethics advice to his Administration." Therein, observed Lawler, lay three shots taken at the Bush Council: it was non-expert, un-objective, and of course, ideological.

And thereby Obama dissolved the most philosophically rigorous, intellectually stellar and genuinely politically diverse presidential bioethics council that has ever existed.

I asked out-going Council member Dr. Robert George his take on Obama's conviction about removing ideology from science. "There are before us today issues of profound moral significance on which reasonable people of goodwill honestly disagree," he said. "To depict one's own opinions as 'non-ideological' while trying to stigmatize the opinions of those with whom one disagrees as 'ideological' is intellectually dishonest and transparently hypocritical."

I also asked him what he expects from the new council.  "I expect no dissent from, or meaningful questioning of, the opinions of President Obama and the left wing of the Democratic Party on morally charged questions of public policy," said George.  "It is very unlikely that the Obama council will exemplify anything like the diversity of opinion that characterized the Bush bioethics council," he said, noting that President Bush had deliberately appointed members who disagreed with his positions precisely because he wanted to hear from them.    "Will Obama want the same thing?" mused George.  "I doubt it, though I would love to be surprised."

Wouldn't we all.

|