Laurie Zoloth, Northwestern University

Stem cell debates have their own weather . . .they created their own storm and always took place on a certain landscape.

The rest of the world had its own debate . . . but ours was predicated on this notion of "moral authority". The Bush doctrine.

The debate in stem cell science was driven by the same arguments that drove so many debates --notably the one about the economy that has brought us to a crisis.

The American taxpayer dollar is less and less available to scientists . . . several arguments have made their way into our consciousness--all wrong.

1. A free market is inherently just. No regulation is the best regulation.
2. When the wealthy are happy, the poor are happy. Policies that get some people rich will also help those at the bottom
3. You can just bank on an infinitely expandable future in every area.
4. Sheer individual determination can get you what you desire.
5. We need to be accommodating.

All wrong. The American economic catastrophe happened because liberals have been too accommodating . . . we need to stand up for what we believe: the enlightenment, the scientific method, the power of reason. The community has its own place alongside individual determination. The future is not infinitely expandable. There are many policies that benefit the wealthy that also harm the poor, and de-regulation of the mortgage industry is one of them. A free market has built-in inequities that will eventually harm it as a whole as well as cause damage to many of its members.

We have not defended and fought effectively for these ideas.

You, the advocates, made the research possible by forcing the issue. When the election is over and the science goes forward, it will be time to take on the real moral issues, and the advocates will need to be ready to take on those issues. Who gets cured? Who pays for those cures? Who makes those decisions?

It's almost the end.