Separar a ciência da política

Obama quer separar a política da ciência.

Já o fez: a investigação em Células Estaminais Embrionárias Humanas, onde tem sido desenvolvida, tem dado maus resultados, tanto do ponto de vista da eficácia dos tratamentos, como ao nível dos efeitos secundários. Para além disso, ao canalizar fundos federais para este tipo de investigação, Obama pôs em risco outras linhas de investigação que já estão a dar resultados positivos, nomeadamente a investigação em Células Estaminais Adultas, a qual, para além do mais, não levanta qualquer tipo de problemas éticos, como se pode ler no texto de Michael Reagan na Town Hall, do qual destaco os seguintes trechos:

«(...) What most people are unaware of is that there are three types of stem cell research: there is embryonic stem cell research (ESC), there is induced pluripotent (IPSC) research, and adult stem cell research (ASC).

When Barack Obama rescinded George Bush's ban on federal funding on certain types of embryonic stem cell research he also rescinded Bush's Executive Order 13435 which had provided federal funding for induced pluripotent stem cell research using harmless adult stem cells manipulated into mimicking embryonic stem cells without the risk ESC cells entail.

This is where 72 different diseases are now being remedied or cured. (...)

(...)I t is well known that lab animals given embryonic stem cells routinely develop tumors and other malignant growths that eventually kill them. There is a 100 percent mortality rate among lab animals that develop these tumors.

That's why George Bush banned this lethal form of research that Barack Obama, who should have known better, has now legitimized by overturning this life-saving ban.

The reason that major drug companies such as Merck and Pfizer are not funding ESC research is because they have seen the research and it scared the daylights out of them. They realized that if they injected ESC cells into human beings and like lab animals, they show signs of cancers or lesions or tumors there will be huge class action suits, because they would have ignored all of the available data in research that shows that that's exactly what will happen. (...)»

Problemas éticos que são hipocritamente descartados através da tal suposta separação entre ciência e política, como se a ciência - qualquer ciência, neste caso a embriologia - pudesse ser uma disciplina autónoma do saber humano e responder a todas as questões que se nos colocam na nossa passagem pela Terra e, muito em especial, às questões que se colocam aos próprios cientistas, as que emergem das suas investigações.
Sobre esta matéria, ler o texto de Steve Chapman, também no Town Hall, cuja conclusão destaco:

«(...) He (o Presidente Obama) did, however, reject another option. "We will ensure," he said, "that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, or any society."

Is that a scientific judgment? No, it's a philosophical one, reflecting Obama's moral values. Apparently, the folks in the white lab coats can't be relied on to answer all questions.

But this position is hard to square with his professed approach. On one hand, the president says his policy is "about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion." On the other, he will use coercion to keep them from doing reproductive cloning.

What this mandate means is simple: It may be permissible for scientists to create cloned embryos and kill them. It's not permissible to create cloned embryos and let them live. Their cells may be used for our benefit, but not for their own.

There lies the reality of embryonic stem cell research: It turns incipient human beings into commodities to be exploited for the sake of people who are safely past that defenseless stage of their lives.

It's a change that poses risks not just to days-old human embryos. The rest of us may one day reap important medical benefits from this research. But we may lose something even more vital.»

Uma separação cruenta e com tremendas consequências.