Dear Mr. President,

I oppose research that destroys human embryos, and I oppose federal funding that creates an incentive to do so. I expected that I would disagree strongly with your decision when I heard that you had a statement to make on the issue. What I did not expect, however, was the extent to which your statement would be needlessly offensive. In your campaign you spoke of ending divisiveness. But in your statement on this particularly controversial form of research, it seemed as though you went out of your way to be divisive.

You discussed "restoring scientific integrity." After the signing, the White House website read, "President Obama lifts restrictions on stem cell research and ensures sound science will no longer fall victim to politics." One way to be extraordinarily divisive is to be dismissive, which is precisely what you have been in the debate over embryonic stem-cell research. Opponents of research that destroys human embryos have been cast as somehow anti-science, as though this issue simply represents a modern-day Scopes trial. But while science provides us with important information to weigh in our determination whether we ought to go ahead with a particular form of research, the "ought" is only resolved by an ethical inquiry, not a scientific one.

When you spoke of being "called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering," you raised a legitimate argument - but it was not a scientific one. Please recognize, Mr. President, that what we have is an ethical disagreement, and end this nonsense about one side being pro-science and the other being anti-science. It is childish, and in your Inaugural Address, you promised to do away with childish things. And I note that you too, Mr. President, are against some scientific research. You stated, "And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society." When we speak of what research is acceptable, it is a question of where the line is to be drawn - not whether the line exists. So what really makes your proposed limits on science consistent with "restoring scientific integrity," while President Bush's were not?

You also stated that "many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose this research. And I understand their concerns, and I believe that we must respect their point of view." I appreciated such a statement, but did not feel it was honest in light of the rest of your speech. We thoughtful and decent people were not part of the "majority of Americans [who] have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research." If the opponents of this research truly are as thoughtful and decent as you suggested, then it is appropriate to at least address those concerns. "The perils" of this research, for opponents, are not only in some distant future, down the slippery slope. They are here and now, and need to be addressed. This federal funding provides an incentive to destroy human embryos, and I did not hear you specify any limits as to the sources from where these cells could be obtained. Do you support funding research on embryos that were created and destroyed solely for the purposes of research? Or is this limited to those embryos that are to be discarded at fertility clinics? Are any such limits indicative of an anti-scientific attitude?

At the 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum you stated that you "don't presume to know the answer" to the question of when life begins. You also stated that "potential life" has a "moral weight" that we ought to take into consideration. How much weight have you assigned to the embryo in making this decision? How did you determine that pursuing this research is worth the moral cost? Do we err on the side of death for the embryos when there is a potential benefit for others? How large must the benefit be? How is it that the "proper course has become clear," when you have claimed in the not-distant past to be so uncertain about the value of human life in its earliest stages? At what point of human development would you find that the potential benefits of research are outweighed by the developing human life? Opponents of this research do not expect you to suddenly agree with us upon considering these important questions. But we do expect open discussion and mature debate about the serious ethical issues involved.

Respectfully,

Patrick DeKlotz