The "restoration of science to its proper place"?

I'm glad to see someone smarter than me finally expose the fraud of Obama's claim to "restore science to it's proper place." Click here.

Charles Krauthammer points out the hypocrisy:

Restoring? The implication, of course, is that while Obama is guided solely by science, Bush was driven by dogma, ideology and politics.

What an outrage. George Bush's nationally televised stem cell speech was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last few minutes, the listener had no idea where Bush would come out.

Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the "false choice between sound science and moral values." Yet, exactly 2 minutes and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open the door to the "use of cloning for human reproduction."

Does he not think that a cloned human would be of extraordinary scientific interest? And yet he banned it.

Science must be guided by moral principles, otherwise we end up with lampshades made of human skin, etc. The battle is over whose moral principles are the right ones. Or as it actually happens, who can persuade the rest of the country that their principles sound better.