There are two competing schools of though regarding this issue. Many would turn a blind eye to science and technology, with some extremists, ala Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, even preferring to reverse its forward march. It’s tempting and easy to blame technology for societal problems. You can hardly go a day without hearing it – television causes violence and makes people lazy, computers lead to invasion of personal privacy, etc. Some will make the case that their grandparents did just fine without it, so why does the world need it now? Others will argue from religious perspectives, that God didn’t intend for Mankind to manipulate the natural world in such a way. These arguments are not without merit. Obviously there are drawbacks that can be found with every single piece of new technology.
The other line of thinking calls for the most rapid possible advancement in scientific discovery, arguing that if something can be done, it should be done. They will claim that this is for the good of humanity, and that even if immediate positive uses for a given invention or discovery aren’t evident, they one day will be, and that it will lead to even further advancements. Don’t be fooled – the promise of great profits is a major motivator in this brand of reasoning. But again it is hard to argue with this position – this is where great gains humanity will come from, including cures for major diseases, exploration of sea and space and products that continue to improve the quality of life. It’s called progress, and it’s essential for any thriving society.
For the rational mainstream, this produces an intellectual dilemma, and it is this quandary that the President mulled over before arriving at his conclusion. And what to make of his decree? His actual decision was a compromise on the stem-cell subject, allowing research on existing projects to continue with federal funding, while denying taxpayer dollars to those hoping to start new research projects. This will have little effect on the research in question. While a boon to certain teams, private research will continue unabated. Looking at this “compromise” on the surface level, one could argue that Mr. Bush made this decision for political reasons in order to avoid angering too many potential voters on one side or another.
The far larger effect is the direction set regarding the handling of science, and the battle of progress vs. ethics. Of course, this debate is age old, and the President, rather than ignoring it as so many of his predecessors have done, confronted what may be the most important issue in American life at the turn of the 21st Century. And the decision he arrived at was nothing less than the perfect position de compromis, made with the very Wisdom of Solomon.
What the President really did was again put America at the forefront of a major world issue. This is the message he gave: America won’t be held back by fear, and we are going to be a leader in developing science and technology. However, we are going to do this with a measure of caution, and we are going to balance the potential gains that science may yield with our sense of morality. What could be a better road to follow? If you had a large sum of money to invest, what would you do with it? You would not put it all in a stock that promised a big payoff but came with huge risks. Yet you would not put it under your mattress out of fear of losing it – you would put it in a fund with a good yield and moderate risk, right? No progress can be made in any aspect of life without taking some risk; to believe otherwise is foolhardy. And yet responsibility must be employed, and that is what the United States will be demonstrating to world community by employing President Bush’s stem-cell decision.
And speaking of taking risks, you can bet that we as a nation will confront issues of this nature with increasing frequency. It’s important that we decide on an individual level how technology fits in with our moral code, because we will have choices never before offered a generation. The day may come when it is fashionable to “design” our children before we conceive. Nanotechnology may make it possible to live in a “virtual world,” where we can construct and live scenarios far more exciting that our ordinary lives. Sometimes despite the best efforts of our elected leaders (and because of the lack of effort, as well), these questionable situations are going to force their way into being whether we like it or not. This is where we must have some moral backbone, and in some cases decide that despite fashion or convenience; reject the temptation to go with the technological flow. But that doesn’t mean to turn your backs on every new gadget and gizmo that comes along – most of them are bound to be pretty cool. In fact, I am still looking forward to the day when they come out with the hoverboard from Back to the Future II.
“Right on, Jung,” you say. Who’s going to argue with the common sense I’m always spouting off, right? But I know you aren’t all fence sitters. Some of you would lead the pack on adopting questionable new products. Others of you are scared to death of anything with an on-switch and are only reading this website because your job or spouse make you use a computer. Technophobes? Technophiles? Let’s hear from you – Bring It ON!!!!
Watching President Bush explain the process of stem-cell extraction and discuss the process in relation to human cloning, a viewer couldn’t help but feel that he was living out a scene from what would have been a science-fiction film only a decade ago. The future is now – scientific advances have multiplied exponentially, each discovery leading to ten other discoveries, and the remarks of the President on this topic signal the mainstreaming of science in American life. Although the topic of his speech was government funding of stem-cell research, a more important message could be gleaned – how the U.S. plans to handle the intermingling of technological advances with traditional living in the new century.