ON THE ISSUES: Stem-Cells
Published November 09, 2004
ON THE ISSUES: Stem-Cells
Since the passage of proposition 71 — which mandates $3 billion for stem-cell research in California — the outlook for progress and research continuing in this field looks highly positive.
About stem cells (why we care)
Kristen Philipkoski says:
Scientists want to study embryonic stem cells because they are the precursor to every type of cell in the human body. One way to obtain stem cells is from couples who donate extra embryos after in vitro fertilization. But cloning embryos to get stem cells affords the opportunity to study the development of specific diseases.For example, researchers can extract stem cells from a clone created using a skin cell from someone with multiple sclerosis. They would insert the skin cell into an egg whose nucleus had been removed. When the embryo grew to about 100 cells, scientists would remove stem cells, then coax them to develop into nerve cells that will develop the disease. Watching multiple sclerosis develop from the earliest stages could help researchers find a way to stop the disease's progress.
Therapeutic cloning might also provide a genetically identical supply of replacement cells for patients with diseases including Parkinson's, diabetes or spinal cord injury.
So the big question is why would we want to stop this research? Well, the answer is simple. People are ignorant of the facts — and that even goes for our president. Ok, well maybe he is not ignorant of the facts, he just wants to side with his fanatical Christian base so they don't feel completely duped. Since the stem-cell debate was in the top 3 moral issues this last election there are a lot of people that put their faith in Bush to stand by his word to protect these embryos — even when that means refusing to support amazing research.
See, there are a few problems with the thinking that this research is wrong. The first being that millions of real people are dying each year from diseases that have no real cure. As described previously these simply cells have the potential to do amazing, life saving research and in reality they are simply discarded on a daily basis.
Bush is entirely willing to let patients die rather than abandon his symbolic acts of respect for embryos (symbolic because funding does not affect the number of embryos destroyed each year). It's a fact that in vitro fertilization clinics often discard embryos not used by couples. - R. Alta Charo, professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin Law and Medical Schools.
- ON THE ISSUES: Stem-Cells
- Published: November 09, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: rageforward.com
- rageforward.com's BC Writer page
- rageforward.com's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I've written more about Proposition 71 here. Its passage with nearly 60 percent of the vote is encouraging. But, I wonder if California's law will become a target of the Bush administration as assisted suicide has in Oregon. On the bright side, the main harasser of states that try federalism, John Ashcroft, will be at home hiding from calico cats.
As a Californian, I think that the passage of Proposition 71 sucks. I'm all for stem cell research - any kind, anywhere.
But Proposition 71 ads did not make clear that there was a $3 billion dollar cost attached, actually $6 billion that will have to be paid back because California has to borrow the money.
That's approaching $200 for each man, woman and child in the state. Had they been asked in those terms, few would have voted for the Prop.
The problem is that Californians already have a huge debt hanging over them.
And it just gets worse and worse. To give the appearance of a balanced budget, Schwarzenneger borrowed $15 billion last year. He'll probably have to borrow another $10 billion this year. And yet another $10 billion next year.
There are a lot of good ideas that could be pursued out there, but some fiscal responsibility is required.
California should not have gotten further into debt and did not need to do so - the authorization for stem cell research could have been written without the huge financial hit.
This is another strike against Arnie. And my bank balance. And yours, and your children's and their children's ...
Assuming that the research leads to treatments, isn't the state going to get a cut of the profits? I seem to recall Stanford made a lot of money off of their research.
California will probably get a lot benefits from it, including a lot more jobs as new companies are created, etc.
I object to the Republican "SPEND, SPEND, SPEND and damn the consequences" approach to fiscal responsibility.
I did read material before the election that made reasonable economic arguments against Proposition 71. However, most of the opposition seemed to be coming from the anti-abortion movement. They have dubbed embryonic stem cell research "destructive." So, whenever you see that word attached to a claim of economic concern, something else is going on. I hope for the sake of Hal's great-grands that the law proves profitable for the state.
As I say in my most recent entry about ESC research, one of the positive things about Proposition 71 is that people will now consider what being in favor of 'life' means on higher ground. Finally, folks will be discussing quality of life.
I'm not sure the national GOP is behind the measure. Bush is obstinate about trammeling embryonic stem cell research. We'll see what happens.
It was tough for me to come to a decision on this one, MD, because I agree with pretty much everything you said about stem cell research.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/22034)
Well, I agree that life, scientifically speaking, begins at conception, because if scientists found a glob of 100 cells frozen in the ice on another planet, the headlines would scream, "We found life on another planet!"
And then we'd all read the article and realize that all they found was a glob of cells. And we wouldn't care one whit if they performed experiments on them.
So the glob of cells may have life, but it's not an individual human life with all the the rights bestowed upon an individual. They are really just a bunch of microscopic cells that should be used as best we can use them. And stem cell research seems like a promising use.