Saw this Washington Post story this morning and it's already beginning to zip around the blogosphere. Of course, everyone was freaking out about "should we?"

Listen up folks. If it can be done, someone is going to do it. This "should we?" debate seems to have originated with the development of the atomic bomb, and it's as naive today as it was sixty years ago. Do you really think it would've made any difference if we'd "banned" all research into nuclear technologies? Do you think that would've stopped Stalin, or Mao, or Britain, or France?

Let the scientists create. It's what they do. If what they're doing seems scary, keep a real close eye on them, but don't tell them to stop. Because they won't. They'll just move on to some other place that won't stop them and keep going.

People make fun of the Catholic church because it banned Copernicus and Galileo, said not only was their doctrine wrong it was so wrong it could corrupt you and so you should never, ever learn about it.

So please, tell me, what makes the congressional ban on, say, stem cell research any damned different?