The Inconvenient Science
BY FANGHUI ZHAO
Stephen Colbert once told George W. Bush: “reality has well-known liberal bias.” Indeed, for the past few decades, emerging facts from the natural and social sciences have revealed a reality that seems to be overwhelmingly in support of the political agendas of American liberals. The present alliance of science and America’s political left however, is not an inherent product of a liberal predisposition towards science. This marriage has more elements of convenience than ideological compatibility.
Unlike the absolute convictions displayed in political and ideological duels, the scientific method is built on uncertainty and fallibility. New discoveries and technologies tend to upset the status quo. Hence, laws and political convictions that are supported by current scientific evidence could one day be shaken by new facts in the future. In the fight to advance civil rights, scientific facts have served liberals as important legal weapons in legislative process and in court cases, and also helped to turn the tide in public opinions by dispelling erroneous beliefs. There have been, however, certain trends of scientific development that could turn on liberals and upset positions that were once secured by science.
Scientific knowledge has been a shaping force in the national debate on abortion. Progress in medical science has been instrumental in advancing a woman’s right to abortion. An increased understanding of the process and mechanism of pregnancy dispelled erroneous beliefs such as the impossibility of conception in cases of rape. Improved technology has drastically increased the safety of abortion procedures, which helped tip public opinion towards its acceptance. In the landmark case Roe v. Wade (1973), the majority based its opinion on medical knowledge about fetal viability – when a fetus is capable of surviving outside of the uterus. The court ruled that the state’s compelling interest to protect potential life is only valid after the point when the fetus is able to survive outside of the mother’s uterus. The concept of ‘viability,’ however, hinges on the prevailing medical knowledge. Roe v. Wade set the line at 28 weeks, but following changes in technology, it shifted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). The case set a precedent that the exact line would depend on the knowledge and technology of the time as well as the judgment of the state legislature. Since then, many states have enacted laws to push back the line to as early as 20 weeks into pregnancy.
New findings have also indicated that 20-week old fetuses might feel pain. This has added a twist to the popular debate about ‘potential life’ and ‘fetal personhood’, and poised to unsettle the line about where a fetus’s right begins and the mother’s right ceases.
In another arena, gay rights advocates are facing a different type of challenge posed by science. Progress in biology has established a genetic basis for human sexual orientation, which suggests that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. Given its biological immutability, sexuality could then meet the legal definition of ‘suspected classification’, and discrimination against individuals based on their sexuality would fall under the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment, similar to race and gender. This is a crucial argument raised against California’s Proposition 8 that could allow homosexual individuals to gain legal protection over their rights. Some advocates however, fear that the linking of genetic and prenatal hormonal influences on sexuality could medicalize and pathologize the trait, thereby opening the door to genetic treatment and prenatal testing for homosexuality. There have also been pushbacks against this determinist view based on biology, as it undermines the position of those who value choice and argue for the fluidity of sexual orientation against the normalizing force of society.
These difficulties science poses to the liberal political agenda raise the question: What if scientific facts are no longer convenient support for one’s ideology? Should ideologies triumph over or adapt to realities? It is a question equally valid and unavoidable for everyone across the political spectrum. Perhaps we should take the chance to step back and reconsider the relationship between facts and values. Values such as the belief in ‘unalienable’ individual rights involve some elements of faith and commitment that should not be dictated by changing facts – rights of homosexual individuals should be protected regardless of whether homosexuality occurs by birth or by choice. To fully realize these rights however, any practically implementable policy cannot be devoid of facts – the demarcation between the rights of the mother and the fetus should be settled as an empirical issue. There might not be a single formula to apply in all situations, but as science unravels more mysteries of human existence, we will be forced to confront the gap between what we wish the world would be, and what it truly is.