The economy and foreign policy may be higher on President-elect Barack Obama's to-do list, but science and technology issues are on the radar screen as well. Among the top tasks: taking the ideology out of scientific issues, and doing more about what Obama has called a "planet in peril."
"By avoiding techniques that destroy life, while vigorously supporting alternative approaches, President Bush is encouraging scientific advancement within ethical boundaries," the White House said Tuesday in a written statement on the new research.
Vetoing the bill a second time Wednesday, Bush also sought to placate those who disagree with him by signing an executive order urging scientists toward what he termed "ethically responsible" research.
Bush announced no new federal dollars for stem cell research, which supporters say holds the promise of disease cures, and his order would not allow researchers to do anything they couldn't do under existing restrictions.
"If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos," Bush said. "I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line."
On 9 August (2001), eager to please everybody, especially his conservative supporters, Bush tried another form of compromise, in a well-worded speech that suggested personal agony, as well as political astuteness. Bush reminded listeners, in a reference to use of fetal tissue transplants for Parkinson's disease, that promising scientific endeavors do not always succeed. He ruled that the government could fund research on stem cells that had been derived before, but not after, 9 August provided that they came from embryos left over after fertility treatments (thereby excluding the embryos created specifically for research by the Jones Institute).
The compromise was that the government should not encourage destruction of more embryos, but since the damage had already been done in the case of cells derived before 9 August, and the potential to treat disease was real, use of these cells should be funded. Bush's well-worded speech did not please everyone, though most conservatives (with the notable exception of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops) have remained quiet. Many scientific groups, including the American Society of Human Genetics, have offered cautious praise, largely because the statement sets a precedent for federal funding, which they hope may be expanded if preliminary research succeeds. Bush's statement is illogical and without a basis in principled reasoning. There is no reason, beyond the political, why it should be ethical to use stem cells from blastocysts killed before the arbitrary cut-off date of 9 August, but not afterwards.
Federal funding for research involving mouse embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells (both mouse and human) is currently available and is not restricted. However, federal funding for research involving human embryonic stem cells is limited to research involving only those cell lines that were approved by the Bush administration in August 2001. In contrast, no restrictions in the type of research that can be performed with private funds are in place.
NEW YORK (AP) -- What if scientists could find a way to produce embryonic stem cells without having to tamper with embryos?
In addition, scientists still must show that these cells can give rise to many cell types in the lab, as embryonic stem cells can.
And all this must be accomplished in human cells -- a difficult task, because introducing genes into human cells is a major challenge.
ESCs are taken from extra 5-day-old embryos artificially fertilized in a laboratory by the wishes of the aspiring parents. Markedly early in development, the embryo numbers about 100 cells (compare that to the 10,000,000,000,000 cells in an adult). At this stage in the natural female body this bundle of cells has not even reached the uterus, the mother’s womb, where fertilized eggs have to initially implant for a pregnancy to even begin, as is the medical consensus.
"Its end is the way of death," said Brownback, a Republican presidential hopeful. "It kills a young human life. It harms us as a culture when we treat human life as property. We've done that. We don't like it. We don't like the history associated with it."
More than 5 long years into President Bush's short-sighted, cruel policy restricting stem cell research, America once again has the chance to reverse it -- and strike a blow for hope.
On January 11, 2007, the House of Representatives will vote on H.R. 3, a bill to overturn President Bush's restrictions. The Senate is expected to vote shortly thereafter. Although stem cell research has bipartisan support, "pro-death" activists are working hard to torpedo this bill, and take hope away from millions of Americans. Please write your members of Congress today, and ask them to support this bill:
Because President Bush may veto it, it is critical that we not only pass it -- but that we reach the 2/3 majority necessary to override the veto. Every vote counts -- and every email from you counts. So write your members today, tell them to support H.R. 3, and tell your friends to do the same:
“I hold to the principle that we can harness the promise of technology without becoming slaves to technology and ensure that science serves the cause of humanity. If we are to find the right ways to advance ethical medical research, we must also be willing when necessary to reject the wrong ways. For that reason, I must veto this bill.”His only veto of his entire presidential career, I guess we should have expected it would have come in the form of stalling scientific progress. Science and Ethics are always considered polar opposites when we listen to the perspectives of those on the Pro-Life side of the debate. However, this is a gross oversimplification that is simply not true: science and morality are more often interwoven than not, research scientists themselves being some of the most honest, truth-abiding people out there in our society. I pose this question: what type of person would choose a job that paid little, expected lots, and placed intense scrutiny from educated peers on his or her ongoing research constantly? There is no room for intellectual dishonesty with an occupation rooted in empirical evidence, where logic and honesty are the only realities possible.
“Yet, as science brings us ever closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to manipulate human life and violate human dignity.”Bush’s justification for his stance on embryonic stem cell research picks and chooses tenets of a morality that he cares to employ and to preach (protecting the sanctity of aspiring life), while skipping over others (protecting the sanctity of existing life). He packages his own version of morality and sells it to the nation as evidence for his actions, one of the reasons even his political party, and some of them Pro-Lifers, are divisive about the issue. This dissent comes from the same group of misfits that all recently agreed to embrace the Iraq War—yes, that one nation that has descended into chaos under our watch— as a key issue this fall. How could it be that a bloc of politicians can agree to run on the war amidst failing public opinion and security, with a linearly increasing civilian death toll, but not seem to get their opinions squared away with Bush’s principled delivery? It seems there are some forces at play here that rival the mystique of quantum physics.
Posts
All Comments
I encourage feedback and responses in the comment threads and email.
© 2006-11 Chris Smyr unless otherwise noted
