An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Keep God And Politics Out Of Stem Cell Research

President Barack Obama Monday is expected to fulfill a campaign promise by rescinding federal funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. It’s expected to reopen a moral debate which could become more divisive than the ideological political confrontation over rescuing the economy.

For me it’s a no-brainer.

Diabetes has ravaged my body for a quarter century. Extended research jump started with renewed federal grants holds promise for a cure not only for diabetes but many others such as cancer, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

If you are doomed to die from these diseases, it is akin to being tossed overboard and become desperate enough to clutch to any flotation devise to keep you alive.

Or to recall an historical example, during the 1960s and early 70s thousands of Americans went to Mexico to obtain the cancer-fighting drug Laetrile which was banned in the U.S. The drug’s effectiveness was inconclusive.

This is not the case with various forms of stem cell research.

I’m no geneticist nor a moral ethicist. But no matter how hard I try, I fail to comprehend the reasoning behind the basic argument offered by opponents. They have no problem discarding unused days-old embryos obtained from fertility clinics. But they yell “murder” when the embryos to obtain the cells are destroyed for scientific research.

My fervent plea to the president: Leave politics and God out of the discussion and turn it over to scientists at the National Institutes of Health and let them establish the research grant guidelines.

Obama either by executive order or through Congress will end limited federal funding enacted by President Bush. Under Bush, taxpayer money for that research was limited to a small number of stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001, lines that in many cases had some drawbacks that limited their potential usability.

But hundreds more of such lines — groups of cells that can continue to propagate in lab dishes — have been created since then, ones that scientists say are healthier, better suited to creating treatments for people rather than doing basic laboratory science.

Nor does Obama’s change fund creation of new lines. But it means that scientists who until now have had to rely on private donations to work with these newer stem cell lines can apply for government money for the research, just like they do for studies of gene therapy or other treatment approaches.

From the Associated Press:

“America’s biomedical research enterprise experienced steady decline over the past eight years, with shrinking budgets and policies that elevated ideology over science. This slowed the pace of discovery and the search for cures,” said Sean Morrison, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Stem Cell Biology.

Critics immediately denounced the move.

“Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for experiments that require the destruction of human life,” said Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council.

Indeed, there are different types of stem cells: So-called adult stem cells that produce a specific type of tissue; younger stem cells found floating in amniotic fluid or the placenta. Scientists even have learned to reprogram certain cells to behave like stem cells.

But even researchers who work with varying types consider embryonic stem cells the most flexible and thus most promising form — and say that science, not politics, should ultimately judge.

Finally, from the New York Times:

Obama’s announcement is not likely to lead to any immediate change in government policy, since it may take many months for the National Institutes of Health to develop new guidelines for research.

Still, research advocates are expected to push for the process to go as quickly as possible to ensure that universities have time to submit grant proposals that can be reviewed and accepted before September 2010, when the health institutes must commit the last of the $10.4 billion given to the N.I.H. as part of the economic stimulus program.

Cross posted onThe Remmers Report

  • CStanley
    What about those of us who are consistent and believe that the discarding of embryos created for IVF is morally wrong as well? Are we allowed to raise ethical concerns against research done in the name of science (and obviously with good intentions) if we're not hypocritical about it?
  • mattthecoolist
    Recently, scientist developed the ability to standardize the process of producing Human Embryos. With this ability to indentify and standardize the process of producing Human Embryos, we can now also use the same starting point to determine when a Human Embryo has human rights under the law of the Constitution of the United States.

    Indeed, is a human any less human becomes they cannot fend or care for themselves? Does a US citizen give up their Constitutional Rights because they are not able to defend themselves?
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Jerry:

    As the uncle of a precious little boy who suffers from type 2 diabetes, I know how horrible this disease is and my thoughts are with you.

    Bush's obstinate and wrongheaded positions on stem cell research have consistently enraged me, and I am aware of your warning to keep God and politics out of stem cell research. But is is exactly Bush's failure to do so, that has set our efforts in this area back at least two years--make that eight years.

    I was especially offended when in June of 2007, this man vetoed a bill removing stem cell limits, saying "All human life is sacred"

    In a letter I wrote, published by the New York Times on June 22, 2007, I pointed out the inconsistency of this man's actions, when compared to his actions as governor of Texas when he approved the death sentences of dozens of human beings, and of his words that ''destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical,'' which flies in the face of his invasion and occupation of Iraq, where thousands have been killed, ostensibly to save human lives threatened by Saddam Hussein.

    Many will support and defend Bush's philosophy with regards to the death sentence and the invasion of Iraq.



    Fine. But, I stand firmly with the last paragraph of my letter:

    "Not to mention that his ''love'' for embryonic stem cells may be sentencing many of us, and our descendants, to death because he has effectively vetoed the potential to find cures for so many life-threatening illnesses."

    I warmly anticipate President Obama's announcement Monday and I applaud it now.
  • Manchester2
    There's a lot of disinformation around this issue. Former President Bush was opposed to a specific type of stem-cell research, namely, stem-cell research that destroyed nascent human life. However, his prohibiting the development of new lines of embryos for research does not mean that he opposed all types of this important endeavor. Adult stem cell research, for example, is making great strides, and does not destroy an embryo. This heartening story was hardly covered in the media when it broke. One has to wonder: Why not? Who stands to make money now that President Obama has reversed this ban?
  • AustinRoth
    "Leave politics and God out of the discussion and turn it over to scientists"

    Well, I have no problem with leaving God out, as long as moral questions can be raised in all scientific endeavors. Many people base their moral positions in some manner on some form of God, though, so it is a little disingenuous to say 'leave God out'.

    For the 'leave politics out', well, I bet you don't mean that at all. You probably mean 'leave politics I disagree with out', as anytime government monies are involved, politics is involved.

    And 'turn the decision over to scientists'? I was trained to be a scientist (particle physics), even though I work as an engineer now, and hold science in the highest regard. But science and scientists' jobs are to provide information and technology. How to use those is truly a social and political decision, as it should be. As a general rule, scientists have too narrow a world-view, and are too vested in their specific field, to make broader decisions on the use and implementation of what they develop.
  • Manchester2
    AustinRoth-

    As usual, you've advanced the conversation - thanks. My son is a computer science major, and this summer will be doing an internship on artificial intelligence at a nearby university. Parallel with the development of the robot technology are interns addressing the question of the legal rights of AI's, as they're called. And yes, it sounds like "I, Robot" stuff, or maybe for Trekkies, ethical questions raised around the character of Mr Data. But what I don't get when it comes to stem cell research is why some insist on the embryonic variety, with all its "Brave New World" baggage, when the same positive outcomes can be achieved with adult stem cell research, which doesn't set off the same ethical alarm bells. That's the question we should be asking, but isn't being raised here at TMV or elsewhere. Follow the money.
  • AustinRoth
    Well, despite the advances achieved with adult stem cell research, there are indeed aspects of embryonic stem cells that are unique, and offer potential paths for medicine found nowhere else.

    My personal position is as long as you are not 'breeding' embryos in humans for harvest, that is acceptable. I have no issue with 'petri-dish' embryos, as the 'potential life' argument in that case is exceedingly week. But that is my opinion, and I can respect without demonizing those who oppose it. I do, however, hope they fail in their opposition.
  • Wendy025
    While Mr. Remmer may have a good argument for stem cell research, he makes what I feel is a totally erroneous and very misleading statement. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research certainly DO have a problem with disposing of days-old embryos from a fertility clinic. Opponents abhor the thought of any embryo (read: human life) being "disposed of" like so much trash. The whole idea of fertility clinics themselves is questionable, because they represent a case of man playing God. God creates and gives life and lives. Some people were not intended to have babies ... why, I don't know. But life is not about always getting what we want ... it is about taking up our cross, whatever that cross may be, every day. A certain nobility of spirit comes from accepting what is to be, no matter how much it may hurt us. And getting back to the issue at hand, the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research: Why should I have my tax dollars used for a method of research that is so objectionable to me?
  • CStanley
    I agree with Wendy, of course, but Manchester makes the even more important point about the disingenuous tone of the debate over this whole issue. Even MSM sources are readily admitting this, that science has moved passed the ethical dilemma in finding ways to convert adult cells back to having the properties of embryonic ones- and that the embryonic cells were always subject to certain problems that didn't yet have solutions (development of teratomas, and host rejection.)

    Even the scientists who didn't bother to correct the public's misperceptions about the promises of cures are actually applauding the new decision mainly because studying the embryonic cells will help them better understand cell differentiation, not because they actually think the embryonic cells will be directly useful for medical treatments.

    And as far as keeping politics out of science? Fine, but that means we stop funding all scientific research with public money. If government funds are going to be used at all, then politics is there- so what you're really saying is that you think that people on one side of the debate should be able to politicize science for their purposes, but the opponents should be barred from the conversation.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC