I criticize the Left for anti-scientific beliefs more than religious groups for a reason. I see the Left-wing as a more fundamental threat to science and technology than religious activists. Who opposes new technologies? A list of Left-wing activists: socialists, radical environmentalists, feminists, egalitarians, etc.

Take an honest look at Canada and Europe. They radically banned a long list of biotech, genetic-modification, and other medical advances at the urging of Left-wing Luddites. The United States is a bastion of scientific and medical research because it refuses to follow the European road.

Take a look at Canada as Virginia Postel did:

U.S. scientists and their supporters tend to assume biomedical research is threatened by know-nothings on religious crusades. But as the Canadian law illustrates, the long-term threat to genetic research comes less from the religious right than from the secular left. Canada’s law forbids all sorts of genetic manipulations, many of them currently theoretical. It’s a crime, for instance, to alter inheritable genes.

And the law has provisions the fabled religious right never even talks about. It’s a crime to pay a surrogate mother or to make or accept payment for arranging a surrogate. It’s a crime to pay egg or sperm donors anything more than “receipted expenses,” like taxi fares. Since eggs are used not just in fertility treatments but in research, this prohibition stifles both. . . .

You can’t say the same for the antibiotech left. In liberal Canada, in fact, the law defines cloning expansively. Future procedures that might avoid religious objections would still be illegal. The goal is to stop certain research altogether.

Exactly. The Religious movements are comparatively tame. Even their odder beliefs are local and limited. They want to teach “intelligent design” in their local school districts instead of evolution. In Soviet Russia, the communists mass-murdered geneticists because evolution was politically threatening. In secular Europe today, they want to ban much of genetic research outright.

Honest to God? I’d take the Bible Thumpers; they keep to themselves.

Some feminists object to egg donation, paid or unpaid, for research or conception. “It presupposes an instrumental attitude toward one’s own body and that of others” and begins to impose a “social obligation on the female body,” notes German feminist Ingrid Schneider.

What the hell does that even mean? It’s an excuse to hold back human progress, very typical of feminists.

While the Left in Europe and Canada are making so much genetic research illegal, what’s the biggest religious controversy in the US?

Embryonic Stem Cell Research. ESCR is LEGAL. It receives billions of dollars in funding. The debate is not over whether or not to ban it. The debate is whether to give it billions more in taxpayer money or billions more in private funding. That’s the “controversy” in plain and non-partisan terms.

ESCR has unrestricted state and private funding. It even receives restricted Federal funding. Religious conservatives oppose their tax money being used to fund something they see as morally wrong. They are not forbidding research of ESC. In fact, if you support ESC you can donate your own money.

The political debate is whether research should be funded through private equity or through federal taxes. Private equity tends to be more efficient and already provides the vast bulk of medical and technological research funding.

There’s no actual controversy here.

I wonder if, as in the ESCR case,there is a benefit in the US political structure. The most anti-technology groups can do is withdraw Federal Tax funding of programs they dislike. It is vastly more difficult to make the research illegal.