Instapundit links to a post by Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice about federal funding of embryonic stem cell research:

There were powder keg issues such as Terri Schiavo, the nuclear option, environmental policies and yet, with some erosion, the White House and Karl Rove have been riding high. Yet, is all this about to change — perhaps swiftly?

The reason: the stem cell issue is simmering and on the verge of the boiling point. Even if you don't factor in the recent House or Representatives vote, the stem cell issue is potentially devastating not only because it directly impacts so many Americans — but because it's going to sharply bring into focus for many Americans how theology may be starting to trump science in government policy. Our bet is that most Americans won't like that.

Throughout American history government opted on the side of promoting and encouraging science and research. In this controversy, the country may see a President veto a bill basically in the interest of theology, pleasing a key constituency but angering others — including many Republicans. What will THAT do to the White House's clout?

When Gandelman says "theology may be starting to trump science in government policy" what he's implying is that moral/values questions should not limit scientific inquiry. But where does Mr. Gandelman's "leave moral questions out of science" thinking end? What if we could find a cure for cancer or other diseases by doing a few experiments on, say, prison inmates or the mentally retarded? Moral limits must be a part of scientific inquiry.

Science doesn't tell us anything about morality, one way or the other. Science is a tool, like a hammer. It's a moral judgment whether a particular use of a tool is good or bad - hitting someone on the head versus driving a nail, for example. There must be moral limits on what we do with the tool of science. It's naive and dangerous to assume that anything technology can do is a good thing to do.

But of course Gandelman and those of like mind aren't really arguing that moral questions should be left out of the equation. They're really arguing that their moral views should triumph. This is usually the case when liberals (i.e. "moderates") say things like "conservatives want to impose their morality on others." All sides want their values imposed.

After all, if morality is completely out of the issue, then why fund medical research at all? That the government should take money from taxpayers and spend it to cure diseases is entirely a value judgment. Other Americans might think the best moral use of their own earnings is to feed and educate their own children, to care for their elderly parents, to invest in some biotechnology stocks, or any number of other uses. These are questions of competing values.

Note that we haven't argued for any particular outcome in the embryonic stem cell research debate here, only against the "leave morality out of science" fallacy.

Update: The Evangelical Outpost responds to some more liberal "leave your morality (but not ours) out of the stem cell debate" arguments.

And Professor Bainbridge passes along another thought about "legislating morality."

And Eugene Volokh has similar thoughts.