Thursday, June 24, 2004
Leadership in stem cell research
I do wonder if Bush (or the people pulling Bush's strings) even understand that prohibiting stem cell research doesn't save any embryos? If they aren't used in research, they're going to be destroyed, or tossed in a deep freeze indefinitely.
An editorial by Paul Smaglik in this week's Nature mentions recent attempts by Kansas and Missouri to work around the federal restrictions on stem cell research, that were blocked by local featherbrained ideologues.
In Missouri last month,university officials and biotech leaders had hoped that a state economic-development package would allow universities to combine private funds with public money to create endowed chairs. But this provision was quashed,in part because anti-abortion groups voiced concern that the money could be used to support embryonic stem-cell research.
Kansas faced a similar situation.Here, in April, the state passed a law to create a bioscience authority that would allow it to identify and recruit top researchers—but that basically bars embryonic stem-cell research.
The next battleground will be California,which already leads the country in terms ofreceiving funding from the National Institutes of Health. The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative will provide $3 billion in stem-cell funding over ten years. So it will be up to California’s voters in this November’s referendum to tip the recruiting balance further towards their state by agreeing to more stem-cell funding, without restrictions. In the end,it may be up to researchers to follow the funding.
This is what happens when you let people set policy who don't have any knowledge of a subject other than what their ill-informed, prejudiced minister tells them.
Comments:
Now see, the problem is with these half-measures. Ban abortion, ban infertility treatments that create more embryos than will be carried in the pregnancy (or ban infertility treatments altogether, since children are a Gift From God and infertility is obviously caused by an annoyed deity witholding a gift). While you're at it, ban contracteptives. Now you've got laws that properly support the Sanctity Of Life. A side-effect is no embryos for stem-cell research.
(You don't think this is a good idea? But, the Pope is pushing it! How on earth could it not be a good idea?)
Successful embryonic stem-cell research becomes another obstacle to returning to 19th century human reproduction. Besides, all those diseases and conditions we might cure are sent by that easily-annoyed deity anyhow, and we should just learn to live with them or figure out how to propitiate Annoyed Deity to have them miraculously cured.
Some days I feel as though I've stumbled into a theocratic twilight zone.
Can we ban obstetric care too? We don't want to save babies that God had intended to die. If God had intended humans to live through childbirth he wouldn't have given us a comicly narrow pelvic opening, after all.
Next entry: Chemists have a sense of humor? Who knew?
Previous entry: The Top 100 Movies
Ron Jr provided a delighful WWF Smackdown on Bush's stance on stem cells and Iraq last night on Larry King Live. Definitely worth reading.