An interesting debate is taking place at the University of Nebraska, according to this New York Times story. The board of regents is considering a prohibition of research on embryonic stem cells. Key paragraphs:
Advocates of the research, including the university’s president, worry that the restrictions would make it nearly impossible to attract researchers of regenerative medicine or grant money in the field, and some fear it could send a deeply disturbing signal about the broader academic climate here.
The university is one of scores across the country that engage in human embryonic stem cell research, which attracted about $88 million in federal financing in 2008. Some $3.2 million in federal money is supporting research projects that include such stem cell work at the University of Nebraska.
“It would taint this university for a long time,” said Dr. Harold M. Maurer, chancellor of the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, which conducts stem cell research.
Suppose researchers at the University of Nebraska were conducting painful research on cats, with the aim of discovering a cure for cancer. Would the same argument be made, to the effect that a prohibition would "make it nearly impossible to attract researchers"? Of course not; conducting painful research on cats is arguably immoral, even if it might lead to useful knowledge. "But research on embryonic stem cells isn't immoral!" reply the researchers. Many reasonable people believe it is. You have to argue that it isn't, not just point out that people won't come to the University of Nebraska if it's prohibited. The University of Nebraska doesn't want immoral research conducted under its auspices.
The point is that not all research comports with morality. Just imagine the types of research that progressives would prohibit, if they could. It would include research into innate sex differences, research into innate racial differences, research on the causes of homosexuality, research on animals, and research on genetically modified foods. Merely wanting to engage in a line of research isn't enough; it must be morally permissible. As for "tainting" the university, why would prohibiting immoral research taint anything? If anything, it will enhance the university's reputation.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 