Support First Things by turning your adblocker off or by making a  donation. Thanks!

In today’s  On the Square ,  Wesley J. Smith wants you to know that he is not anti-science, despite what his critics might claim . Quite the contrary, in fact. He’s pro-science, but also pro-ethics:

Debate adversaries are called “anti-science” most commonly during intense disagreements about the proper ethical parameters to establish over controversial areas of scientific inquiry. For example, the embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) debate isn’t primarily about stem cell science. Rather, the controversy surrounds the ethical propriety of destroying human embryos as if they were no more important than a corn crop. Throw the potential for developing non-contentious stem cell alternatives into the discussion—such as adult stem cells—and you have a real policy donnybrook.

Read the rest here . If you’re already reading Smith’s blog over at  National Review Online and would like to read some other intelligent writing on science and ethics, I suggest checking out  The New Atlantis   (here’s a symposium on embryos  and another issue dedicated to stem cell research .)

And if you, like me, are not quite Irish enough to know the word “donnybrook,” Merriam-Webster is here to help .

Comments are visible to subscribers only. Log in or subscribe to join the conversation.



Filter First Thoughts Posts

Related Articles