On Stem Cell Issues, Dialogue Is Better Than Debate

Explores the stem cell debate, and the limitations of that form of public discourse.

There are few public issues involving facts alone, not values. For those few issues, perhaps we could allow the experts on each opposing side to line up the facts, debate each point and let the chips fall where they may. But for the vast majority of challenges facing our nation, from Social Security to stem cell research, the choices involve deeply held values, personal interests, and the delicate balance of majority rule and the protection of minority rights. Certainly the experts must contribute to the formation of the discussion if it is to be one of substance. But debates occurring solely among "policy experts" exclude public dialogue, which is essential to sound, stable judgment that bypasses political gridlock and endures over time.

The stem cell debate -- and up until now it has really only been an elite-level debate, not a genuine public dialogue -- demonstrates the limitations of that form of public discourse. Stem cell research is a complex issue that necessitates weighing the value of potential advances in medical research that could have huge benefits for the health of thousands Americans versus the possibility of starting down a slippery moral slope that leads to the further devaluing of vulnerable human lives.

In the late 1990s, as great advances in biomedical research began to take shape and growing awareness of the potential for public backlash became apparent, the scientific community had an opportunity to establish greater understanding by reaching out to the public. And I don't mean solely a public information campaign to convince voters of the science's merit or an "education" campaign to communicate the details of the stem cell research process. The scientific community missed out on an opportunity to take the lead in public dialogue that could have produced learning and understanding on both sides.

President Bush also had an opportunity to talk openly with the public and learn about the diverse values and priorities that are shaping people's feelings on these issues. Instead, in 2001, the President issued an executive order banning federal funding of research utilizing stem cell lines derived from human embryos. This was not the end of the debate, just another salvo in the ongoing battle between the "expert leaders." Many Democrats, believing they finally possess a "wedge" issue that can be used against the Republicans, are jumping into the debate, still without actually listening to the public.

At the time President Bush instituted the limitations on federal funding, polls showed that most Americans (60%) had not followed the stem cell debate closely. When asked if the government should fund this type of research, a similar majority said they did not know enough to say. However, when given an explanation of the procedures and purposes for conducting stem cell research, a majority of Americans said they would support both the research and government funding for it.

But just "presenting the facts" in a phone poll isn't enough. As we all know, this is a complex issue interpreted very differently by various parties -- and therefore described very differently in surveys.

Survey responses on these issues depend largely on the way the question is worded. In one national survey, when the question referred to "destroying living human embryos" in order to harvest stem cells for unproven research, 70% opposed it, with a support at 24%. But in another survey, when people were told of a process that uses excess human embryos from fertility clinics, which would otherwise be discarded, for research that could cure many fatal diseases, support came in at nearly 60%.

Obtaining authentic public input requires the dedication of resources. It necessitates the development of thoughtful, nonpartisan public dialogues that bring together people from all walks of life to learn about the range of alternative approaches and tradeoffs and to weigh-in with their own values, experiences and opinions. The point of debate is to win at all costs, whereas the point of dialogue is to produce consensus and understanding. The difference in the quality of ideas exchanged is like the difference between a verbal war waged with bumper stickers versus the probing conversations many Americans have over coffee in church basements following a good sermon.

Nation-wide forums take time, but much less time than the three years each side has spent arguing with the other since the 2001 federal ban was put in place. On any issue where values and trade-offs are involved, we ought to be investing in a process that produces solid opportunities for finding common ground through public dialogue. When you consider the societal costs -- the partisan bickering, the litigation, the jockeying of special interest groups -- when debate stays at the "expert" level, public dialogue looks like a very sound investment.