Art Caplan on dishonesty in the embryonic stem-cell debate

Sherif Girgis recently interviewed the prominent liberal bioethicist Art Caplan and me for Public Discourse.  The first part of the interview was posted this morning, and is available here:  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/04/2490.  The second part is scheduled to appear on Friday of this week.

MoJ readers who are interested in bioethics might find the interview interesting for several reasons.  It turns out that Professor Caplan and I agree on quite a number of points.  And even on points on which we disagree, some of the disagreements are less sharp than one might have predicted.  Far more importantly, Professor Caplan severely criticizes many of his fellow supporters of embryonic stem cell research for the tactics they used (and still use) in the debate about federal government funding of biomedical research involving the deliberate killing of human embryos.  He explicitly accuses them of dishonesty in hyping the therapeutic potential of embryonic stem cells: "Embryonic stem-cell research was completely overhyped, in terms of its promise. And people knew it at the time."  Condemning a claim made by many, including Ron Reagan, Jr., the liberal son of the late president, when he was given the stage at the 2004 Democratic National Convention to attack opponents of embryo-destructive research and promote the idea of a "Republican war on science," Professor Caplan is brutally blunt: 'Here's an assertion that you hear all the time:  "Stem-cell research will help Alzheimer's."  But stem cell reserach had no possibility of helping Alzheimer's."

Opponents of embryo-destructive research have long contended that many of its supporters, including prominent scientists and politicians, were saying things they knew at the time to be false in order to achieve their political goal of embryonic stem-cell research funding.  They were callously elevating the hopes of suffering people and their families for political reasons.  But, of course, the critics were dismissed as "religious fanatics" and tools of a “Republican war on science.”  But Professor Caplan is himself a supporter of embryonic stem-cell research (because he believes it is useful in basic science, not because he supposes it will produce miraculous cures), and he is anything but a religious fanatic or a Republican.  He is a leading figure on the liberal side in bioethics (he very prominently supported Terri Schiavo's husband in the debate about removing her feeding tube) and is Director at the University of Pennsylvania of what is probably the most important academic bioethics center in the country.  What matters most, is that he is an honest and forthright man who will not compromise his integrity in the pursuit of political goals, and who refuses to countenance such conduct by anyone, including people on his own side in important debates. We need more people like him---on both (or all) sides.