With all the media attention on this subject lately, I thought I would comment on a few things that have come to mind.
First, the bill that Bush vetoed on would have expanded federal funding embryonic stem cell research. I’m sure to many people, it sounds like the issue was whether or not to allow embryonic stem cell research. However, that would be wrong.
Secondly, several news organizations have categorized the debate as “Science against Religion”. This statement is false. Believing that the unborn should be protected is no more religious than believing that two-year-olds should be protected. The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics has outlined the scientific argument against embryonic stem cell research here. [PDF]
Thirdly, let’s review the cures that have been discovered using embryonic stem cell research. None, and this despite the $3 billion California is spending on researching embryonic stem cells. Some people may say that this is because it’s “too soon” to expect cures. Yet, “adult stem cells and cord blood cells are already being used to safely and effectively treat more than 60 conditions”.
I am an eighteen-year-old college freshman at UC Berkeley who became interested in politics at a young age. Besides being part of the Berkeley College Republicans, Berkeley Students for Life, and KALX, I enjoy reading, singing, and playing guitar. One of my main interests is sharing my opinion at my personal blog and at the ACYU, of which I am a co-founder. Email me: 
July 25th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Exactly. How about real science versus politicized science? Any true scientist drops an hypothesis that has been disproven in the lab. In 8 years, the “promise” of ESCR has yielded no results, versus the extensive advances made with adult stem cells (which ESCR advocates insist “don’t work”). So any true scientist should be against wasting resourcse on a disproven hypothesis.
Next, there’s the conservative argument (apparently, the GOP has abandoned conservatism): why is the government spending taxpayers’ moeny on medical research *at all*, especially when there are plenty of private sources for funding? It’s nothing more than welfare for pharmaceutical companies.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
This is a “philosophy of science” vrs “true science” issue. After WWII we had a huge influx of professors of medicine from Nazi medical schools who claimed they’d been forced to lie to stay alive and to work. Yet since then, the culture of death has taken over much of medicine. Hmmmm??????
It was found (30’s or 40’s) that adding flouride to the water would sicken a certain percentage of people from areas where flouride occurs naturally, yet the health services made the decision to do it and hide the truth — there was a cover story in Chemical & Engineering News on Aug 1 maybe 25 years ago on this.
In the Nazi and Communist mentality, it is OK to experiment on “inferior” human beings as defined by whether you agree with their “totalism” or not (see Psychiatry professor Dr. R. J. Lifton, MD., THE NAZI DOCTORS, & SEARCH FOR THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE.)
It is clear, here, that someone is pushing a culture of death agenda and steadfastly refusing to face reality.
August 28th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
I’d just like to comment on your three points.
Your first point is dead on.
As for you second point, you’re both correct and misleading at the same time. The stem cell argument shouldn’t be framed in a ‘Science vs. Religion’ context but that is exactly what the Republicans have done in this case. It’s an undeniable fact that the Bush administration and many Republicans oppose this legislation because they want to appease their conservative Christian base. And who can blame them; it was this group that allowed them to win so decisively in ‘04.
The unfortunate thing about this is that, when you face the facts, the Republicans are simply taking advantage of the American people’s ignorance regarding stem-cell research (much as both Republicans and Democrats did with the Dubai Ports deal).
Allow me to explain how I would like to see this debate framed. The largest misconception regarding stem cell research is the origin of the cells used to create stem cells. Stem cells are largely from frozen embryos that are created via in vitro fertilization. In this process, sperm and ova are combined outside the body and then placed into a female’s uterus. For women who suffer from infertility, this is usually one of the last options they pursue. In addition to an embryo that will eventually become a baby, there are several other embryos that are created. These embryos are frozen in case the first one fails to live.
There are approximately 400,000 of these embryos in the US today and the fact is most of them are doomed to die. These embryos don’t stay pristine forever and as a result they must be thrown away. The real question regarding stem cell research is “Is it right to use some of these doomed embryos for medical research?” The fact that certain parties call this research ‘murder’ is outrageous. One can argue that being ‘throw away’ is more dignified than being destroyed for research but any extension to murder is simply a lie. If one truly wanted to prevent the murder of embryos, they’d fight to make in vitro fertilization illegal as it is the source of the doomed embryos. However, few politicians would ever take up this position because it would be spun as discrimination against the infertile.
I also think you’ve jumped the gun a bit on your third point. There are numerous examples in science of technologies that take decades to develop. Quantum mechanics developed slowly over several decades and thanks to work that began in the early 1900’s we enjoyed a plethora of things ranging from simple LEDs and solar collectors to computers, lasers and MRI’s. Things take time to develop and it’s perfectly reasonable that 8 years of extensive stem cell research has turned up very little.
All in all, I find your blog very enjoyable.
September 1st, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Thanks for sharing your view, DJ Jazzy. I hope you will stay for future discussions.
About Religion vs. Science: The entire problem with this phrase is that it implies that the “Religion” side has no scientific basis, and is directly against science. On the contrary, stem cell research is opposed because of the scientific fact that it is exploiting an individual human life (a person). The real argument is consistent ethics vs. an “Ends justify the means” mentality.
Furthermore, I have not witnessed a Republican frame this argument as being one of Religion vs. Science. Can you provide a specific example? Obviously, it would not be in their best interests at all to be viewed as having no scientific basis.
Also, have you considered that Bush might hold the views of Christian Conservatives not because he wants their vote, but because he is a Christian Conservative himself?
Next, about Republicans trying to capitalize off people’s ignorance. If you read Bush’s speech here about embryonic stem cell research, you can see that his facts and yours are almost exactly alike. Here is a passage that contains almost all the facts you wished would be included.
“My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories.
Some will not survive during long storage; others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born, and are today healthy children.”
So, it would seem that the Republicans are giving the information you requested, and the claim that they are purposefully withholding information holds no merit.
Now, about your 400,000 embryos: According to this report, only 2.8 percent (11,000) of all frozen embryos are available for research. This is because most of the embryos are still kept by the parents for future in vitro fertilization. Of these 11,000, fewer than 1,834 embryos would be able to survive to the stage where they can be used to produce stem-cell lines. So, actually, we are talking about around 1,500-2000 embryos. Along with being used for research, these surviving embryos could instead be adopted.
It is a fallacious argument to say that because a human is doomed to die (which isn’t even the case here, as those embryos that are available for research are also available for adoption), it is allowable to kill it for science. For instance, would it be allowable to use a sickly premature infant’s heart, just because he will probably die? According to your logic, it is.
Murder is the intentional ending of a human life. That is the case in embryonic stem cell research, so it is murder. Any argument against this is simply ignoring the scientific facts listed here.
Lastly, although there is the possibility that cures will be found with embryonic stem-cells, it seems foolish to me to spend the majority of our resources on an immoral method that has been greatly surpassed in cures already, as I have stated in my first post on this topic.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Hi Katelyn,
Here is an article written by Archbishop Donald Wuerl on the subject of Stem Cell Research, from Columbia Magazine (I’m a Knight of Columbus
). He makes many of the points you do, but what I often find confusing is why Embryonic Stem Cell Research is pushed so heavily when Adult Stem Cell Research is the one providing all the cures. The current issue of Crisis Magazine has a good reason why - money. ESCR lines can be patented (big business), while ASCR is just a technique, as the cells used to make cures are taken from the patient to be cured.
ASC therapies (which are already working) also have a very low rejection rate from the patient, while ESCR hasn’t even had a human test yet, and rejection rates are expected to be high.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are confused by all these terms. But if anyone reads the above two links, they explain the issues quite well. The ethical issues aside (which I agree with the Katelyn on), it doesn’t make sense to support Embryonic Stem Cell Research when the ROI (Return on Investment) is so much greater with Adult Stem Cell Research.
Let me know what you think
-Lee
September 5th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Thanks, Lee. Both articles are good resources, and the second article is especially valuable because it argues from the mindset of the opposition. I had been wondering earlier why there was such a push for embryonic stem cell research, and I think the reason you mentioned is probably it.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
I think it is terrible that Ronald Regan’s widow used her husband’s legacy to push for ESC and actors like Christopher Reeves were duped into believing in the snakeoil promises of them.
The Kerry-Edwards campaign kept saying they wouldn’t withhold ESC research and that Mr. Reeves would get to walk again. Come to find out, months after his death some women in Spain with similiar spinal cord injuries did indeed begin the process of regaining mobility after operations using their own ADULT stem cells. If ESC propagandists didn’t waste time and money on blocking adult stem cells and researching embryonic stem cells , maybe Mr. Reeve would have walked before his death. It is a shame his mobility was not politically expedient, only the promise of millions for mad scientists.