Stem Cells and Liberty

One can agree with some of the moral claims of The Liberty Papers in supporting President Bush's veto.

First and foremost, there is no constitutional justification under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution for Federal funding of stem cell research of any kind. There is no serious arguement that can be made for funding this on national security grounds that can be made, for example, for space exploration. Stem cell research, as presently being speculated, cannot be used for contagious, deadly diseases, which would justify Federal funding under national security grounds....

Third, there is a moral reason to opposing stem cell research funding. However, Bush has does not comprehend the following reasoning when he talks about morality. The government has no right to take the money of taxpayers and spend it on things they view as immoral and that have no common value. The vast majority of Americans will not benefit from stem cell research because, fortunately, they will not suffer from the conditions that stem cell research will treat. If President Bush truly believed that embryonic stem cell research was immoral, he would push for a ban, instead of the compromise position he came up with in 2001.

I support the  strong potential  that are indicated by research programmes into embryonic stem cells. The argument that these programmes may not provide a medical benefit can be refuted, since it reduces science to a narrow, utilitarian structure. My dilemma arises from the use of government money to fund such research. Given that  Big Science from the research councils has 'crowded out' other  sources of funding, stem cell research would halt without this input. Any reduction of the state should allow a slower decline in science funding, to set upalternative sources.

I can only sigh when my hopes for science clash with my dislike of the state. And every year, the stakes in resaerch get higher.