When you read hundreds of letters from readers every month, as I do, common patterns of argument emerge. I can’t answer every note individually, so in this column I’d like to at least respond to one type of assertion. That is the idea, whenever the letter writer doesn’t agree with an expert-informed point of view expressed in Scientific American, that science should not mention or touch on politically sensitive areas—that science is somehow apart from social concerns. I say: Wrong.

Science findings are not random opinions but the result of a rational, critical process. Science itself advances gradually through a preponderance of evidence toward a fuller understanding about how things work. And what we learn from that process is not just equivalent to statements made by any another political-interest group. It is evidence-based information that is subject to constant questioning and testing from within the scientific community. Thus, the science-informed point of view is a more authoritative and reliable source of guidance than uninformed opinions. We should not discount its value in informing public discourse.

Certainly politics, for its part, has not left science unmolested. Citing past instances of politically motivated suppression of findings, President Barack Obama signed a memorandum a year ago that directed John P. Holdren, the White House science and tech­­nol­ogy adviser, to explore ways to restore scientific in­tegrity to government decision mak­ing. I salute the gesture, although at press time I still remain im­patient for the actual delivery of that strategy.

One well-known area of research government stifled in the past is stem cells. Embryonic stem cells offer amazing potential for cures, because they can become any of the 220 types of cells in the human body. They could be used to replace diseased tissue or to develop therapies for ailments such as Parkinson’s disease or cancer. Several years ago the Bush administration limited research to then existing stem cell lines, citing ethical concerns about procuring such cells by destroying early-stage—containing about 200 cells—embryos. (A quick aside: politicians seem to have less of a problem with in vitro fertilization techniques, in use for decades, which create thousands of frozen embryos that may be later destroyed.) The current administration later lifted those restrictions, but the topic remains fraught.

In this issue’s cover story, “Your Inner Healers,” Konrad Hochedlinger, a Harvard University associate professor of stem cell and regenerative biology and a faculty member of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, describes a solution that may work for science and politics. New techniques can convert any mature body cell into an embryonic state—from which any desired tissue could theoretically be grown. It is early days for this exciting advance; we don’t know yet if the reprogrammed cells can truly duplicate the abilities of embryonic stem cells. But we do know that science, if we allow it to proceed, will strive to find out.

This article was originally published with the title Society and Science.

17 Comments

1. 1. JamesDavis 10:33 AM 4/21/10

   Yes, Mariette DiChristina, you are correct and leave no room for idiot "want-ah-be religious conservative rightest or Tea Party Baggers to argue. Smart people know the benefits this research will bring and fully endorse it...more should follow your voice.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. RDH 11:41 AM 4/21/10

   Correct me if I'm wrong but Clinton decided not to fund stem cell research while Bush did. And the article is a bit misleading in asserting the government "stifled" such research. The government simply decided tax payers would not fund the research. Private research was never "stifled".
   
   When Bush started funding stem cell research, with the noted limits, he indicated he blieved scientists could come up with alternatives to using embryonic stem cells. So far there has been promising research, as the article mentions.
   
   The concern with mixing politics and science is that a scientist migh succumb to their politics. This appears to have happened as witnessed by the climategate scandal.
   
   James, "smart people" usually can avoid name calling. Especially homo-phobic based name calling.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. droj 12:05 PM 4/21/10

   OK, RDH, . . . you're wrong.
   Bush decided NOT to fund stem cell research, not Clinton.
   Clinton??? Don't remember him having too much say one way or the other on the subject.
   The Bush administration was, without a doubt, the worst thing to happen to scientific free thought this country has ever experienced.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. RHill 12:09 PM 4/21/10

   I'm far more concerned when politics and greed impinge on science. As priests in the only "true religion", scientists must hold themselves about all this human noise.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. tharriss 12:34 PM 4/21/10

   RHill, of course unlike priests in a religion, scientists are part of system designed to weed out individual mistakes and biases over time. The whole thrust of science takes into account the frailties of individual scientists and their tendency as humans to make mistakes or experience personal bias that could affect their conclusions.
   
   Scientists individually don't have to be saints in order for science overall to progress towards finding the truth.
   
   And of course, doubt is key to science, while faith is key to religion. That is one reason why pound for pound, any conclusion by science is much more likely to be accurate than conclusions reached by other methods, religious, intuition, guessing, entrail searching, word of god, etc.
   
   Also RDH, a great deal of research is funded, one way or another through government grants, and if (as in the case of G.W.Bush) the President's administration stamps down, that can have a profound affect on the progress of research. Bush was bad for science, not only tamping down scientific efforts, but his administration regularly hid, altered or ignored scientific finding that undermined the conservative political agenda.
   
   One can only hope we find away to avoid electing another President who fosters such lunacy.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. ralphskinner@hotmail.com 06:12 PM 4/21/10

   Concerning facts, when science and politics collide, science must always win. But stating what is (exists) is very different from saying how one ought to act. That is the role of ethics.
   Politics is the art of persuading the masses that you will do what you have caused them to believe that they want

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. Eeyore3061 07:41 PM 4/21/10

   Yes, but you still have to watch out for when a 'belief' has infiltrated the system. Demonetization of detractors is a pretty good sign that this has happened. :(

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. bongobimbo 08:54 PM 4/21/10

   Good article. Despite changing my undergraduate major from physics to linguistics back in 1955-56, ultimately doing graduate work in Medieval history and theology, and becoming a devoted, active layperson in my church, I've maintained a great respect--even love--for science and its methodology. It's the only way to unfold nature's reality while maintaining the skeptical objectivity needed to evolve future, better ideas of reality.
   
   As for technology, I'm a hands-on carpenter, cabinet maker, and general "maker", a person who delights in building things and making them work. As a little girl I watched my great aunts and step-grandmother, who until their deaths in old age tried to keep their drafty houses heated with kerosene and clean them without electricity and inside plumbing--and lived that way myself as a child, even in winter. So I certainly want labor saving devices. Otherwise it's back to human slavery. Women, especially, should beware of romanticizing anti-technology propaganda, while all of us must keep a sharp eye out for the possible dangers of new technologies and take action against them.
   
   Every democratic society needs the scientific method for sane policy planning, including ethical critiques of technology, yet for years an intelligent approach to making all policy in the U.S., including science and technology, has been thwarted. It goes back past the bad decisions of George W. Bush to those of Ronald Reagan, and is why I consider Bush and Reagan the worst presidents in our country's history, living in a dream (or nightmare) world of armageddon fantasies, which can become self-fulfilling. However, Barack Obama has yet to do much more than make pronouncements. We desperately need a culture of science in America--starting in our public schools, which we cannot allow to be inundated with false doctrines like creationism, 3,000 year old views of white male superiority, and so on. Might as well teach that the earth is flat and shaped like a box.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. biggus56 06:18 AM 4/22/10

   "... Clinton decided not to fund stem cell research while Bush did... The government simply decided tax payers would not fund the research."
   
   I don't understand how you can have government funding without taxpayers paying for it. Or can the US government simply magic money from nowhere?
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. tubeguy 11:05 AM 4/22/10

    What a surprise. Yet another scientist claiming logical superiority over the huddled masses...... The problem with your premise is that while "science" itself is not political, scientists definitely are! Scientists are subject to the same imperfections of character as every other person alive. I think a little introspection and humility are in order, Miss High and Mighty.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. tubeguy 11:07 AM 4/22/10

    What a surprise. Yet another scientist claiming logical superiority over the huddled masses...... The problem with your premise is that while "science" itself is not political, scientists definitely are! Scientists are subject to the same imperfections of character as every other person alive. I think a little introspection and humility are in order, Miss High and Mighty.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. supertexan 01:24 PM 4/22/10

    More mindless Bush bashing. Whether or not the public ought to fund a scientific endeveour is always an ethical question, not a scientific one. Deciding not to do it in a particular case is often the right one. Himmler was big on funding science, very interested in advancing the cutting edge sience of eugenics. Iran is very scientifically minded also in the areas of racketry and muclear fission. I doubt anybody here will support the those government decision to stay out of the way of advancement by funding them. Carter decided not to continue funding on the neutron bomb out of ethical conceerns and I'll bet most posters here would support him and not resort to calling him anti-science because he rightly considered the ethics of the program and didnt listen to science twerps moaning about how he needs to stay out of their way. You may not like the conclusion Bush came up with on stem cell research and can make a colorable argument that he was incorrect but his decision not to fund it was not bad science, it was pro ethics.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

13. 13. borrego 06:26 PM 4/26/10

    In the editor's opening comments about "Society and Science", she wrote: "...thus the science-informed point of view is a more authoritative and reliable source of guidance than uninformed opinions." I feel she insults her readership with this. Does she even know who her readers are? As a Scientific American reader with an advanced degree in Mathematics, should I not be able to give my opinion about how statistics is used/misused in current scientific findings and have it well received? I guess if it supports the editor's ever more obvious agenda, yes, otherwise let's diminish the opinion as "uninformed".
    Let's recall the following famous (or should I say infamous?) quote: “…Half of what we have taught you is wrong. Unfortunately, we don’t know which half.” Though quoted by Harvard Medical School Dean, Dr. C. Sidney Burwell during a graduation ceremony in the 1940s, Dean Jeffrey Flier of HMS in 2008 reiterated this by saying, "Though this quip may cause us to laugh, it is surely still true today." We can all agree Dr. Flier is a learned and accomplished scientist or he would not have attained such a lofty position in academia. Most of what they are taught at HMS comes from the current scientific findings. Shouldn't we then question half of the medical research being done in the world today? Since we don't know which half is in question, we have a social and moral obligation to question it all. This goes for all scientific research being conducted today.
    Not all of your readers are "uninformed". Like myself, a great number have advanced degrees in applied sciences and have been reading Scientific American for many years. We have every right to be heard and not be lectured to. What is your scientific back ground Ms. DiChristina? Oh that's right, you hold a B.S. in magazine journalism from Boston University. Maybe your opinion is also "uninformed".
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

14. 14. Empress9 07:02 PM 4/26/10

    I might be a little more accepting of your opinions if I were to have more confidence in your editing skills. There is no such adjective "fuller" which you used to describe "understanding about how things work" in the second paragraph of your editorial on Society and Science. So, when you say "Wrong", I feel myself wont to counter with my own opinion that you are, indeed, wrong.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

15. 15. willisn 12:35 PM 4/27/10

    Just to bring up a point about the Bush era stem cell funding. Having worked with mouse stem cells at the time, I as well as colleagues understood the ban on new stem cell lines would hurt research and not help it. We all *knew* that while these cells posed great promise, they could not be grown indefinitely in the lab without changing (growing human or mouse stem cells in culture based on cow blood serum on plastic is not the same environment as the body itself). The arguement that these dozen stem cell lines would "go bad" was brought up and dismissed by the Bush admin. Sure enough, less than a decade later it was announced that the majority of the cell lines were bad.
    
    Part of the article overlooked by folks arguing about scientists as political or not, is that Bush and his administration ignored scientists' input in their own area of expertise, stem cell biology, for political gain.
    
    Funding of science but constraining that funding to the use of a known hobbled resource is not what I would define as support.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

16. 16. Deus Ex Machina 04:05 PM 4/30/10

    Hello Ms. DiChristina,
    
    I was guardedly hopeful when Rennie left that you would make an effort to return Scientific American to its previously vaulted, scientific status. But, some of your above comments make me wonder if you will be any different.
    
    The issue that most of us rational scientists have with SciAm and politics is rarely a quibble about scientific facts. Rather it is when persons who write for you, claim to be scientists, claim to be representatives of the scientific method and then go on to publicly mix their political opinions with their so-called science. This gives all scientists a black eye simply because none of us can take the high ground of scientific objectivity when someone with questionable scientific ethics uses his/her SciAm "bully pulpit" to launch a political tirade.
    
    ALL political tirades involve opinions. From the online Webster's, opinion is: "2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge" . This is what is so aggravating to the rest of us. I don't care what Billy Bob's opinion is about anything, much less politics! Science and science journals are no places for such pontification. I do not want my hard-earned money used for what is actually a political rag dressed up in "scientific" clothing.
    
    For example, there is absolutely no confirmed and repeatable data that establishes the need for, or the efficacy of, gun control. I have seen all of "their" data and I have seen the other guy's (in places designated for such things, not SciAm). For the most part those who are making a claim (the gun prohibitionists) have not even gotten close to establishing their case. Therefore, I don't give a damn about their opinion on gun control just because they are scientists.
    
    In fact, some of the most boorish, clueless, idiotic boobs I have ever met were introduced to me as "scientists". Many scientists have been too sheltered to ever be able to offer an airable opinion of the outside world. Why then are they crowing about why it is good to have armed government sycophants seizing guns from private hands?
    
    The same point applies to so-called scientists who get on their high horse about the evils of stem cell research, fictional global warming and drug prohibition. Where is the data supporting their claims? The bible, god or Glen Beck is not proof of anything! I don't care what their opinions are about those things either. If you can't report objectively, get off the stage of legitimate science.
    
    Please Ma'am, only the facts!
    
    
    
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

17. 17. euphobot 05:15 PM 5/4/10

    Ok, so Sci Am authors are now beholden to the politically correct views of the editor. Will the magazine only publish articles that support those views, or will articles merely have to add some gratuitous remark?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this