Californians have always been independent thinkers, but two
recent state laws show that we also take action when necessary.
On Sept. 22, California became the first state to sanction human
embryonic stem cell research. Earlier, on July 22, Gov. Davis
signed the first law in the nation that forces automobile
manufacturers to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Both laws
challenge positions taken by the Bush administration, thrusting
California to the forefront of health and environmental policy.
The California legislature’s decision to defy the Bush
administration on these two high-profile issues has been framed as
a victory for liberals or a victory for Democrats. But there is a
more subtle message: In each case, California lawmakers based their
decision on a solid foundation of science. These laws are a victory
for science.
Science is just one of many inputs into policymaking, and as
such, is always in a tug-of-war with ethical, social, economic or
political considerations. But science has given up a lot of ground
in the White House under President Bush. The administration’s
policies on many issues, such as stem cell research, climate
change, energy policy, missile defense and land management, seem
primarily based on furthering political or economic goals. Science,
rather than dictating the course, is often perceived as a
roadblock.
Biomedical experts claim that embryonic stem cells, which retain
the ability to become any type of cell in the body, have the
potential of treating diseases such as diabetes or
Alzheimer’s. However, some conservative and religious groups
oppose stem cell research since it can involve the destruction of
human embryos to initiate stem cell lines. On Aug. 9, 2001,
President Bush interrupted prime-time television to announce his
administration’s policy.
His decision to federally fund only studies that use existing
cell lines ““ “where the life and death decision has
already been made” ““ acknowledged the enormous promise
of such research while allowing his administration to avoid
crossing a “fundamental moral line” by directly
advocating the destruction of embryos. This politically driven
limitation ““ letting the moral line be crossed by others
““ has resulted in very practical problems for researchers,
who complain about the availability and utility of federally
approved cell lines.
California’s law presents a more logical approach to stem
cell research. As a bill in the legislature, it presented lawmakers
with a clear ethical choice as to whether the destruction of human
embryos is worth the promise of future cures. As a law, it presents
biologists with the best opportunity to pursue their research. It
allows for the development and use of new cell lines in private and
state-funded studies, and sets guidelines for embryo donation and
monitoring by medical and ethics boards.
If the Bush administration is too restrictive in its policy
toward stem cell research, it is generous to a fault toward climate
change. It continues to fund the $1.7 billion Global Change
Research Program and has added new initiatives for research and
technology development. The rub is that research and development
alone do nothing to mitigate climate change. By advocating a
cautious, gather-more-information approach, the administration is
using a robust research program as a smokescreen to hide its
reluctance to force automakers and other industries to
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In contrast, the California law will develop auto emissions
standards that must be met by 2009 models. The decision to cut
emissions is based upon a world-wide scientific consensus that
rising levels of greenhouse gases are causing changes in regional
and global climate ““ with potentially severe economic,
ecological and health impacts. Opponents of mandated emissions
reductions often point to uncertainties in climate predictions
based upon computer simulations. But such arguments betray a poor
understanding of science. Different simulations may have different
levels of accuracy, but they all reach the same conclusion: Climate
change is real and is progressing.
The automobile industry has attacked California’s law by
stating that stricter emissions standards will result in higher
automobile costs, hurting the economy. However, the
industry’s desire to maintain the status quo is only in their
interest, not the public’s. By setting a strict future
emissions target, lawmakers will stimulate the industry to develop
and promote innovative vehicle technologies that are both
economical and environmentally sound.
The United States has a long tradition of leading the world in
science and technology. Yet we have not allowed science to play a
leading role in policymaking. Science has the power to inform
lawmakers by providing concrete data to illuminate the potential
outcomes of their policy choices. But scientific input is too often
overlooked, badly communicated, or deliberately suppressed to
follow other motives.
As educated, informed citizens, we in the UCLA community must
hold our leaders accountable for the basis upon which they make
their decisions. When their decisions appear to defy scientific
reasoning, it should raise a red flag and warrant further
justification. It may not make us popular, but after all,
we’re independent thinkers.