You are right that the “ick factor” is central to understanding what research and what technologies are restricted — from nuclear power to GMOs to stem cell research. ASU just had a conference on this:

http://www.law.asu.edu/ForbiddingScience
http://www.law.asu.edu/?id=9433

I wrote an op-ed on this point here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1619-2004.16.pdf

It seems to me that to understand why some people seek to limit some areas of research it is necessary to first understand people’s values about that research, and not simply assume that they are simply pro- or anti- research.

You post and the link are interesting, but ultimately unsatisfactory. Chris is saying that he wants embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) because it can a) help us understand human developmental biology better and b) might help us with various diseases. In both your post and the link, no one is really saying why they think ESCR is bad. We can’t talk about tradeoffs until anti-ESCR people really describe how ESCR can harm society. The basic feeling I get from anti-ESCR people is “[Something] makes me go ‘Ick’, therefore I think we shouldn’t do it”. Something like evolutionary theory making some people go “Ick. He’s saying there is no God.” We don’t let that feeling by itself tell what is and isn’t good public policy.

Should the ability of scientists to pursue their curiosity be limited in some instances? On stem cells the German government and people apparently think so, and they also think that there is potential in adult stem cell research:

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22054/

Is Germany ignoring or devaluing “the basic scientific quest for understanding”� Or is it possible that there are real trade-offs between different conceptions of societal goals?

For example, surely scientists could do all sorts of fun things inventing “chimeras” — part human, part other animal. And not only would they get to pursue curiosity, they might find some applications that benefit people with diseases. But I’d bet most people would discount both the intellectual quest and the potential applications in the face of the obvious ethics issues associated with such research. I sure would.

As the situation in Germany shows us, the stem cell debate is not about being pro- or anti- research (Would you really claim that Germany is anti-research?). It is all about values and where we decide to draw the line between permissible and impermissible research. That this debate takes place in the form of science, on both sides as you say, should be no surprise. I have no problem with stem cell research of any kind, but I also respect that others hold different values. Your efforts to segregate this issue into pro- and anti- research factions is just another form of scientizing what is at its core a debate about values. And scientizing politics is just another way to politicize science.