More on Stem Cell Research
ABC News has an interesting article up about Bush’s decision Wednesday to veto the latest stem cell bill. As ABC points out, Bush may believe that using stem cells for scientific research is immoral, the far majority (68%) of Americans disagree. Moreover, 60% “favor loosening the current restrictions on federal funding for this research, as the legislation Bush has rejected would have done.”
As should be expected, Republicans and Democrats disagree quite strongly with each other on this issue. Only 49% of Republicans “support stem cell research overall,” compared to 80% of Democrats. Now the reason that I believe that Hillary Clinton should make stem cell research an important theme of her campaign: 70% of independents favor such research. If Hillary wants to win the Presidential elections, she needs to win over Independent voters.
Please click here to read more.
8 Responses to “More on Stem Cell Research”
For more information on the Stem Cell Research Act, please visit: http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=13351 rel=”nofollow”>Project Vote Smart summary of the Stem Cell Research Act or call our hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART.
I have no iidea how this subject should be talked about for political benefit. I can only say that any politician who addresses the anti-science angle directly will gain my respect.
I’ve lost patience with the dual standard in
debates. Convictions on all issues are attacked constantly and mercilessly, and we give respect to those who can defend convictions with reality based ‘proof’ of some kind. When a conviction is based on religion, however, a pro forma, unquestioned, ‘respect’ is demanded and frequently given. I find that to be a mistake, because now “I just believe it to be so” is on the same footing as facts, figures, studies and analyses.
Science and religion have lived peacefully together in the past, in many communities and individuals. They continue to do so, but not in US politics lately. This creates a big problem that won;t go away until some politicians address it directly.
If Hillary bases her stand on stem cell research (or evolution) on science, she should say so, explain what science she is referring to and explain what the adverse reasults of not doing so would be.
She could then be questioned on the validity of the science or her interpretation of it, but, at least we would be on the solid, ground with identifiiable reference points and not in the ephemeral ‘I believe it to be so” area.
I hope she handles this well.
First, Doma, would you allow discussion of ethics in science at all? Any restrictions on ethical basis? If so, how do you distinguish between those objections which you feel are religious and those that are nonreligious but ethical in nature?
Second, anyone who wants to debate the issue on strictly scientific grounds should still take into account that the pro-embryonic stem cell lobby has misled the public into thinking that cures are just around the corner if only Bush would release funds. It’s been terribly politicized, given that family’s hopes are being raised for quick cures.
Non-embryonic stem cell research actually promises results in a shorter time, and contrary to what some will claim, that’s not just because the funding for the ESCR has been hampered. It’s also an actual inherent problem with the cells themselves; the less differentiated the cells are, the more problems there are to overcome (ie, those cells are more likely to divide uncontrollably and cause cancers.) That may be a problem that could eventually be solved, but between the “should we” and “could we” arguments, it makes much more sense pragmatically to invest in non-embryonic stem cell research.
I guess my opinion is that I don’t get why many in the religious right care more about an embryo that would be destroyed anyway than torture victims, or that the Bush DOJ is pushing execution on prosecutors prosecuting capital crimes. It just seems inconsistent. Polling has persistently shown that most Americans favor federal funding for this type of research.
The same is true about many damned stupid politicians and activists. This research is even more hyped — and idolized by the Left — than, say, alternative energy sources, and so many idiots think that this is magic that will achieve fruition tomorrow if only we threw money at it tonight. (It’s also a handy political weapon to use against the un-Christian-ly hated Religious Right.)
Vote Smart: Thanks for the information we see from you periodically.
Ladies (#2 .. #4): Cast your stem cell concerns aside. You can select from the blues, while I get all the pinks. (still thinking about going to France) Have a good evening.
CS,
Any cures from any kind of stem cell research for some diseases is only going to happen after a lot of research. And the anti-ESCR crowd is at least as guilty of exaggerating their side, completely ignoring how many problems there are in coming up with truly pluripotent cells from any other source. The tumor issue you mention would in fact happen to any adult stem cells that had been coaxed into pluripotency as surely as it can happen to embryonic stem cells until we learn to better control reproduction and differentiation. All of it should be treated equally.
In addition you should be more up front about your ideological opposition to the research instead of trying to present your objections as purely pragmatic. In addition the overwhelming majority of opposition is religious (And I mean well over 90%.), including yours based on your other posts here. Any person being honest in this argument should acknowledge that.
My initial post was not directly about stem cell research, but about how I would like to see policies presented and debated.
The question of ethics, brought up by CStanley, ishould be self-evident. Supporting a policy is an expression of ethis from the outset; it’s a way wof saying: this is good. Every argument pro or con is en expression of ethics. All that is needed is clarity about the basis for an argument, and the eithics involved will be clear, with no fanfare needed.
What I would like to see is clarity in stating the basis for a policy or an argument in debate; :science, religous befief or whatever.
If the basis is science, then the debate should be about the science and the benefits/detriments of the policy.
If the basis is religion, debate is possible only in the limited area of benefit/detriment assessment.
If the basis is religion, I give credit to Pres. Bush fpr clarity in stating the basis of his decision.
For people like him, the topic is closed. There is no reason to discuss the science, because no scientific finding would change their minds. They are left with the responsibility for the consequences of their decision, just like science-based people are. No free passes on that score.
I give little credence to arguments by people who oppose stem cell research on principke but coninue to argue against the science, anyway By doing so, they lose clarity as to the basis for their decssion. As a result, they muddy the debate and the topic as a whole.
I give even less credence to those who attack the policy by attacking those who support it. If the science is sound, it makes no difference whether it’s supported by a drunken sailor or the Popo. Science has to stand on its own merit.
This is statement about what I value (or not) in policy debates.
Politicians and commenters will do their own thing, however. I’ll just rate them according to my own standards.