Of Mice and Twins

The battle between science and ethics seems to rage as strong as ever.

Some scientists argue that ethical or moral considerations should not hinder scientific advances. After all, these advances could result in cures for cancer, AIDS, etc., and who wouldn't want that? In fact, who could be so selfish or myopic to stand in the way of such noble progress? Michael J. Fox or Michael Reagan (Ronald Reagan's son) step up to the microphone and plead for a little tolerance from those narrow-minded religious "few" who would stop scientific breakthroughs that promise to benefit many.

Others plead for patience, for measured progress cognizant of moral considerations. Such pleas are increasingly scoffed at by many experts and scientists. "Reward cannot come without risks," they say. "The ends justify the means." But we know that morality need not be thrown under the bus in the search for great advances (read: induced pluripotent stem cells).

This questions remains: What happens when science is not "constrained" by ethics or morality? One example would have to be eugenics, selective breeding to "improve" the human race by reducing the number of society's "undesirables" like the mentally retarded, the poor, even certain races. As many of you know, this was employed by the Nazis in concentration camps; some of you may not know that Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU, was also a fervent supporter of eugenics. Baldwin was close friends with fellow communist and fellow eugenics advocate, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. To Sanger, abortion was a primary means to "improving" the human race, leading her to write, "The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Here is a more recent example of what happens when science is pursued without regard to morality: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15629096 13
Sets of twins and one set of triplets were separated at birth as part of a secret study conducted from 1968 to 1969. One set of twins found out about each other 35 years later and only after one of them would not give up in seeking information about her biological mother. The response from some in the scientific community? "From a scientific point of view, it's beautiful. It's practically the perfect study. But this study would never happen today," said one respected psychologist. Let's think about that statement, dividing it into discreet parts. "From a scientific point of view, it's beautiful...practically perfect." And then, "but this study would never happen today." This individual--albeit unknowingly--is implicitly acknowledging the difference between what is considered good for science and what is good for society/humanity at large! They are certainly NOT always one and the same. Did you note the tone here, too? "What a beautiful, perfect study! But--(sigh)--we don't do this today." The response from Peter Neubauer, the child psychologist in charge of this study? He remains unapologetic and insists that at the time, it was a matter of scientific consensus that twins were better off at birth and raised separately, though one leading child psychologist "never found anything in the literature to support that." (Brief aside: Isn't it interesting how "scientific consensus" is invoked here? It's as if Neubauer considers "scientific consensus" synonymous with "truth.") Two sets of twins still don't know about each other but Neubauer has put his study in an archive at Yale, to be unsealed in 2066. Wow. Can you imagine what these twins must feel? 35 years!

The next time someone says that science--or Science--cannot be bothered by the "petty" concerns of ethicists or "small-minded" religious folk, remember this study. As human beings, we have God-given dignity and value and cannot be reduced to mice in a lab experiment. Sometimes, that which CAN be done in the name of science MUST NOT be done in the name of God.