Friday, August 27, 2010
On Monday federal judge Royce Lamberth, appointed to the federal bench by
Ronald Reagan, blocked the use of federal funds for research using
embryonic stem cells on the grounds that extracting the cells kills human
embryos. It is of course true that, for good or ill, every embryo has the
potential to become a totally unique human being. The same is true of
every zygote created by the fusion of gametes in an in-vitro fertilization
Petri dish. One or more of the resulting embryos will be transferred to
the
patient's uterus a few days later. There will typically be many embryos
left over. They are stored cryogenically in case a second transfer is
necessary. By 2008 about 500,000 frozen embryos had accumulated in
cryogenic facilities around the United States. That would be closer to 1
million by now, all of which retain the potential to become unique human
beings. Does Judge Lamberths decision mean that society must now assume
responsibility for the continued viability of this growing population of
potential people?
Renowned Harvard psychology professor Marc Hauser, author of "Moral Minds:
How nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong" (Ecco, 2006),
wrote that "Our moral instincts are immune to the explicitly articulated
Commandments handed down by religions and governments." I agree with his
conclusion, and so indeed did the two Catholic seminary teachers I wrote
about in "Superstition: Belief in the age of science," (Princeton, 2008),
except that Hauser and I believe it to be an instinct shaped by evolution,
while the two priests said it was "written in our hearts by the Holy
Spirit." Details. It is often referred to by the faithful as "the moral
law." Hauser thought other primates must exhibit similar instincts, but
fudged his experiments with New World monkeys to show it. It was his own
students, who protested, first to Hauser and then to the Dean, that the
experiments showed just the oppo on a site. As Eric Felten wrote in this
morning's Wall Street Journal, they "risked their careers and reputations
to blow the whistle on him. They are the scientists to celebrate."
Two weeks ago WN commented on the conservative hatred of the theory of
relativity and of Albert Einstein. A week ago I added comments from Don
Langenberg about Philip Lenard and Johannes Stark, and also about the
beginning of Deutsche Physik. During the week I learned more about Lenard
from Cornelius Noack, professor of physics at the University of Bremen.
Noack did his thesis at the University of Heidelberg with J.H. Jensen
(Nobel prize 1963). Jensen was a replacement for Lenard who was fired by
the Allies at the end of World War II. Jensen found himself in possession
of Lenards personal library. Noack read Lenards hand-written margin
notes on Einstein's 1905 article in Z. fur Physik. The margin notes,
Noack
writes, are full of hatred, distrust and misunderstanding. Lenard, who won
the prize in 1905 for his work in cathode rays, had found that it always
takes a set minimum of energy for an electromagnetic ray to ionize atoms,
although he never understood why. He felt that Einstein had "stolen" the
Nobel Prize. Noack suggests that Lenard should be recognized for showing
that cell phones arent dangerous.
|
