Slate's Bizbox
human nature: Science, technology, and life.

Stand With HonorThe tragic stubbornness of George W. Bush.

By William Saletan
Posted Thursday, Jan. 24, 2008, at 10:03 AM ET

(Continued from page 1)

To be fair, the administration did loosen some technical funding rules early in the research, though that step was unrelated to scientific developments. Aides paid attention to the field's progress. In fact, they paid keener attention to the progress of alternative stem-cell derivation methods (methods that didn't require killing embryos) than scientists and politicians on the left did. But all the evidence suggests that Bush, having thought through the ethics and facts of conventional embryonic stem-cell research as they stood in 2001, never seriously reconsidered his position as those facts, and the opinions of the authorities Bush had consulted, changed. His decision became self-validating.

From inside the Bush bubble, it never looks that way. You prize your consistency and wonder why others change with the wind. Lefkowitz notes that Christopher Reeve, who initially called Bush's policy "a step in the right direction," later became "a vocal critic." He describes scientist Irving Weissman, who initially said that "[i]f we had 10-15 lines, no one would complain," as deciding later to "change his tune and become one of the President's most persistent critics." Nowhere does Lefkowitz consider the possibility that both men abandoned Bush because the facts advanced and Bush didn't. When it came to harmonizing with evolving realities, it was the president, not his critics, who changed his tune. It's always this way. "Flip-flopping" against Bush—whether on Iraq, tax cuts, or stem cells—is the last stage of having mistakenly trusted his judgment.

Defenders of Bush's policy argue that it was a firm pro-life position all along and that science doesn't change morality. But the firm pro-life position would have been to stick to the existing policy—the policy Bush had espoused during his 2000 campaign—which forbade funding of all research that exploited embryo destruction. Lefkowitz's account says Bush crossed that line and exploited some destruction because evidence and experts told him that taking this step could support enough research to save lives. I believe this account. People who dismiss Bush as a Neanderthal don't understand that he's a science buff. He loves the novelty and wonder of medicine, invention, and space exploration. That's why he's such an avid follower of the latest biofuel technologies.

What screws Bush up is the mixture of science with morality. He looked at the science and pondered the ethics until he reached a compromise that was, as McClellan said, "well thought out." And then Bush stopped thinking. He got it in his head that the stem-cell policy was moral, and morals shouldn't change. As the evidence and experts moved on, Bush refused to acknowledge how significantly his reasoning had relied on them. He forgot that his stand of honor would remain coherent only, in Lefkowitz's words, "as long as the facts on the ground remained as they were."

Even in the realm of moral thought, the stem-cell story shows us a president crippled by a narcissistic fixation in time. What was the moral difference between an embryo destroyed on Aug. 8, 2001, and an embryo destroyed on Aug. 10? Simply that this was the day Bush announced his decision. It's as though he couldn't grasp that the same question had been pondered by previous thinkers and politicians, and that from the standpoint of ethics, as opposed to self-importance, there was no basis for drawing the line on his day rather than theirs. Then, rather than rethink his decision in the years that followed, he referred all questions back to the fact that he had already thought about it. Thinking was a one-time event.

Outside Bush's head, there's no reason to hold the line where he drew it. Lefkowitz describes a meeting in which Bush's bioethics adviser, Leon Kass, told the president, "If you fund research on lines that have already been developed, you are not complicit in their destruction." That's the principle on which Bush based his policy. But the principle is just as valid on Jan. 24, 2008, as it was on Aug. 9, 2001.

Now that we're finding ways to get embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos, Bush's supporters celebrate his stoutness. They think science has vindicated him. I can't agree. For years, he ignored the changing facts on the ground in science, just as he did in Iraq. There's no honor in that.

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.
Photograph of President Bush by Joyce N. Boghosian/AFP/Getty Images.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
Washington Post