this could finally take one hot-button issue off the table:
I disagree. I think it's a non-moral issue only among academics and government researchers. With scientific detachment, and sheer academic interest, you can discuss stem cell research. This particular scientist may fancy himself diplomatic and politically wise, but when he tries to get funding, he immediately puts on his moralist's hat and talks about applications. Watching Michael J. Fox discuss autism and the benefits of stem cell research to that cause results in a moral reaction among many, who will immediately support federal funding. In fact, it is very much moralism that causes people to support most federal funding of medicine. I understand that one's person's morality may not be the same as another's, and there is certainly a subset of the population for whom moralism actually pits them against federal funding of stem cell research, but it must be borne in mind that there is another huge subset (probably the larger of the two), for whom, if explained well, the prospect of federal funding any medical research elicits a moral reaction in favor of the research. What I'm saying is that the "detached scientist" is the exception, not the rule. And most folks will have some strong moral feeling about this issue that overrides the usual economic concerns, whether or not the word embryo or fetus even arises in the discussion.
Don't you think the desire to have cures for their various ailments is the reason people advocate government spending on health research? Sounds pretty practical and self-interested to me, not 'moralism' at all.
