DURING presidential election years, the discussion over how to best serve one’s country always moves to the fore of political debate. This year’s edition proves to be no different, with party leaders touting John McCain’s heroic military record and Barack Obama’s time spent working with the underprivileged in Chicago as a community organizer.
When we turn the spotlight away from these two gentlemen and back on the rest of us, however, the issue of social responsibility becomes more muddled. There are the usual callings to service, such as the armed forces, the Peace Corps and charitable giving. Yet these are endeavors many people will never become involved with — the first two demand enormous dedication and commitment, and the latter requires sufficient financial resources. The question becomes this: What public responsibilities does a typical working person in America have, if any, and how can they be met?
That question might never be answered satisfactorily. Still, we must all recognize one of the most fundamental rights of living in a representative democracy: the power of voting. As has been said time and time again, with this privilege comes a great obligation. While simply taking part in the process is an excellent first step (and of course people have the right to abstain from voting as well), it should only be seen as one part of a larger task. This task entails researching and educating ourselves enough to be able to form logical opinions on policy issues, and thus being capable of holding our leaders accountable for their positions as well.
To illustrate the necessity of such voter responsibility, let’s apply this idea to a single issue, such as the ethical debate surrounding embryonic stem cell research. Increasingly, scientific and technological breakthroughs are requiring citizens not only to understand the political arguments behind each problem we face, but also the basic science underlying many of the disputes.
In the case of stem cell research, the matter is of course complicated by its ethical dimensions, mostly arising from religious opposition. This makes it a perfect example of how education doesn’t undermine moral positions. Chuck Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries, expressed his outrage in this way: “The supporters of embryo-destructive research want to cross a great moral divide. They are seeking not only to destroy human life made in God’s image but also to manufacture life made in man’s image. Tragically, we are losing this fight, however, because too few people understand the issues.” Granted, in this context Colson might mean “issues” to be the greater impact and consequences of stem cell research, not the hard science behind it. Still, there is no question that such strong claims necessitate at least an introduction to the biological principles behind this research.
Unfortunately, too few of us possess that kind of knowledge. People on both sides of the debate are too willing to follow party lines and not do the real work of learning about the practice. As an ardent supporter of stem cell research, I feel confident that more informed debate will spur the kind of awakening we need to move forward in this promising area. But that is not the point. The better we — and our political leaders — can wrap our heads around technical concepts, whether they be in biology, economics or some other field, the more we can elevate the quality of debate from both sides. With the goal of finding workable solutions, that helps everybody involved.
Though the need for scientific literacy and public policy education probably is not too controversial, it is indeed rather challenging to implement. Naturally, the media can play a role by providing more substance in their political coverage, but for the most part they simply cater to viewer interest. In a previous column I wrote about the need for promoting scientific literacy in our college curriculum, but that only helps those who are fortunate enough to pursue higher education. High school would be the next place to look, but with the fast-paced world we live in, the specifics we learn there might not be particularly relevant twenty years down the road. The basic facts will of course stay true, but the technology and cutting-edge research that become political hot potatoes will change rapidly.
All this takes us back to the issue of social responsibility. Since implementing any society-level education program would clearly be difficult, not to mention a lightning rod for criticism over bias and favoritism, the burden instead falls onto each one of us. We must make a concerted effort to seek out nonpartisan information whenever possible. We must turn a critical eye to the claims made by those on all sides of an issue.
This kind of commitment won’t garner the same respect as spending five and a half years as a prisoner of war does. It might not be as meaningful as using a Harvard Law degree to work with the poor and help them find jobs. But it is a way to put our country first and the national interest at heart. It’s a small way we can all do our part.
Ross Lawrence is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at r.lawrence@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 3 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 6 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 6 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
