When science goes awry

Often times politics intrudes where it has little or no business. This is actually almost necessary due to the nature of the world. Asmuch as we would prefer it to be black and white there are, in fact, huge grey areas.
One fascinating instance was the development of the A-bomb, the subsequent hydrogen bombs, and nuclear warfare in general. Many people (incorrectly) call Einstein the Father of the A-Bomb because of a political maneuver. It seems many scientists believed it was inevitable Germany would develop a bomb. Einstein, an avowed pacifist who mixed realism with idealism, was apprised of the situation by a small group of scientists, many of whom had fled German excesses in the 30s, believed it was vital countries fighting Germany develop the bomb first to prevent Germany from doing so, and with that in mind he signed a letter they had written recommending Roosevelt fund the study. A whopping $5,000 was appropriated.
Of course, we all know Germany did NOT succeed in producing a nuke during the war. Once Germany surrendered much of the scientific community believed there no longer existed a moral justification to continue researching the bomb. Even moreso, they believed it was immoral to use the bomb against Japan, a nation NOT trying to develop the bomb.
Recent historical scholarly work often argues the reason the bombs were dropped had nothing to do with forcing Japan to surrender and everything to do with politics: sending a forceful, meaningful message to Russia that the bomb was in U.S. hands and the U.S. would use it; the threat would therefore allow Truman to negotiate the peace and limit Russian power.
The interesting philosophical debates, in my humble yet accurate opinion, are manifold.For example:
Oppenheimer compartmentalized the research on the bomb for purposes of secrecy. This slowed the research considerably as ideas were not allowed to interchange. This was indisputably science in service to politics...at the cost of science for the good of all.
As an example of the difference, after the war Einstein and many other scientists argued the "secrets" of the bomb...which were few, everyone knew the supposed "secret', it was just figuring out a delivery mechanism...should be shared with all the world powers in the interests of humanity and peace. As you probably know, this call was rejected.
As an interesting addendum to this story, when politics ran rampant under McCarthy,Oppenheimer lost his security clearance. It is quite ironic he was no longer considered "safe" enough to read memos he himself had written. Ha, I still find that hilarious.
Be that as it may, politics and science were at cross purposes. And interesting quagmires come out of it; what is the responsibility of scientists and to whom or what are they responsible? Is "Science" itself a goal that crosses boundaries and ignores politics? Or should political considerations be taken into account? Nor is this simply an exercise in judging the past.
Stem cell research and cloning are highly controversial and raise some interesting and sometimes thorny questions. Of course, my love of (often cheesy) movies being well known, I shall demonstrate no conscience about referring to The Island (2005) in which who the life of a clone belongs to were examined. Hidden under the glitzy action sequences were actually some pretty interesting questions that need some care taken on.
The politics surrounding stem cell research are just as, or perhaps even more, and that has slowed the research. Is it right, wrong, both, neither, or something else? I don't know.
What I do know is when science becomes a race for prestige instead of truth it gets messed up. When it becomes something with an agenda instead of a search for unpoliticized truth, things get messed up. I have pointed out dozens of times falsehoods have been pushed in order to make evolution seem true. It is unfortunate because it causes a mistrust of scientific findings. This stem-cell thing has all the earmarks of the same sort of activity. The rush to fame in a field of controversy will make it harder to come to a true foundational understanding of cellular research. The fallout will last for decades as those who based their work on his work have to undo their research and start over.
And politics will continue to decide what science is pursued, by whom, and where, now with more justification. That, perhaps, is the worst impact of this nonsense of all.