The Stem-Cell Slide

I WISH I could say that the president’s speech to the nation on stem cells was as good as I had hoped. It was in many ways a wonderful speech: deeper and more philosophical than I have ever heard a president deliver, unusually balanced and fair in presenting opposing arguments, and clear in delineating both his own decision and the reasons for it. It was, in addition, heartfelt and compassionate toward all families who have members suffering from awful diseases or disabilities. I can even see how the president convinced himself, at the end, that he had found a ray of daylight through the opposing arguments, and arrived at a moral decision that seemed to him sound, and also politically defensible. During the last few months, I have heard many persons who think they are very smart lay out their arguments on this question. Not one of them did as thorough, many-sided, fair, and clear a job as President Bush did in his speech.

At the end, though, my heart sank. The president tried to maintain a position of principle, but what he ended up doing, despite his best effort, was giving away the principle. He put the Full Faith and Credit of the U.S. government behind the principle of using human beings as a means, albeit for noble ends. He offered a reason for doing this: The stem cells for whose use in experimentation he commits federal resources come from embryos already destroyed. Why not bring good out of evil, he argues, by now using these stem cells, which will otherwise be wasted, to search for cures for awful diseases? The outcome is not certain, but at least it’s noble to try. This is a lovely and tempting thought. The problem is that when this source of stem cells runs out—soon—then those on the other side will demand more stem cells from more embryos. The demand for usable stem cells will swell enormously. This is particularly true if good experimental results are obtained. But it will even be true if they aren’t: Look, partisans will say, you were too stingy, too narrow. You have ceded the principle, so now give up more of the specifics. The glittering utopia of science beckons just ahead.

About the Author

Michael Novak

Michael Novak was a Catholic philosopher, journalist, novelist, and diplomat.

Featured Tags

I WISH I could say that the president’s speech to the nation on stem cells was as good as I had hoped. It was in many ways a wonderful speech: deeper and more philosophical than I have ever heard a president deliver, unusually balanced and fair in presenting opposing arguments, and clear in delineating both his own decision and the reasons for it. It was, in addition, heartfelt and compassionate toward all families who have members suffering from awful diseases or disabilities. I can even see how the president convinced himself, at the end, that he had found a ray of daylight through the opposing arguments, and arrived at a moral decision that seemed to him sound, and also politically defensible. During the last few months, I have heard many persons who think they are very smart lay out their arguments on this question. Not one of them did as thorough, many-sided, fair, and clear a job as President Bush did in his speech.

At the end, though, my heart sank. The president tried to maintain a position of principle, but what he ended up doing, despite his best effort, was giving away the principle. He put the Full Faith and Credit of the U.S. government behind the principle of using human beings as a means, albeit for noble ends. He offered a reason for doing this: The stem cells for whose use in experimentation he commits federal resources come from embryos already destroyed. Why not bring good out of evil, he argues, by now using these stem cells, which will otherwise be wasted, to search for cures for awful diseases? The outcome is not certain, but at least it’s noble to try. This is a lovely and tempting thought. The problem is that when this source of stem cells runs out—soon—then those on the other side will demand more stem cells from more embryos. The demand for usable stem cells will swell enormously. This is particularly true if good experimental results are obtained. But it will even be true if they aren’t: Look, partisans will say, you were too stingy, too narrow. You have ceded the principle, so now give up more of the specifics. The glittering utopia of science beckons just ahead.