A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
March 31, 2005Stem Cell FightWhen Massachusetts voters elected Mitt Romney, we didn't expect social issues to be the signature controversies of his term. The gay marriage issue was thrust upon him by the courts, but the battle over embryonic stem cell research seems more like a fight he himself has picked in order to gain the respect of social conservatives nationally. He's threatening to veto a bill which passed the State Senate overwhelmingly, and is likely to pass the House, though possibly not with a veto-proof majority. On this topic, I received an email today from Chris Gabrieli, the Democratic nominee for lieutenant-governor in 2002 on the ticket that was defeated by Romney. Gabrieli is "the Chairman of the New Democrat Network and serves on the Boards of the Third Way Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute of the Democratic Leadership Council." Considered a potential candidate for governor in 2006, Gabrieli would be a moderate alternative to the most talked-about potential Democratic candidates, Attorney General Tom Reilly, and Deval Patrick, described by supporters as a strong progressive. Gabrieli is promoting bettercommonwealth.org, which, like this blog, shares a fondness for baseball metaphors.
Personally, I find the idea of cloning embryos kind of creepy, in a Robin Cook thriller kind of way. But ethically, I have no problem with it, and I believe the White House position, which Gov. Romney seems to share, can only be described as faith-based. There are some distinctions between this fight and the abortion debate. A woman's "right to privacy" is not as issue, because these embryos are just colonies of cells in a lab dish. They are not inside a uterus. On the other hand, the fact that they are not inside a uterus is to me a bright line. For many people, the discomfort with abortion is that we know an infant is alive, and a full-term fetus prior to birth is viable, and before that, it's difficult to find a bright line before implantation in the uterus. But this is prior to that point. Nor are these embryos unique combinations of nuclear DNA. They share the same DNA as the cell donor, using a hollowed-out egg cell. If all colonies of human cells are to be afforded the protection of human life, it seems to me that we should ban body piercing, circumcision, elective surgery, and any procedure which would destroy human cells. Should we? Posted by rickheller at March 31, 2005 02:02 PMComments
If all colonies of human cells are to be afforded the protection of human life, it seems to me that we should ban body piercing, circumcision, elective surgery, and any procedure which would destroy human cells. Should we? I think you can still be against stem cell researching. From what I understand there's a fear that stem cell researching will open doors to human cloning, which I think is a very legitimate concern. (I'm for stem cell research still, though). the White House position, which Gov. Romney seems to share, can only be described as faith-based. I'm interested in why you think this is a problem? It seems to me religious (i.e. moral)concerns are a very legitimate concern, seeing as how the whole "is it ok to clone humans?" discussion is firmly rooted in whether or not humans have a soul. I have no problem with Bush or Romney opposing this sort of thing personally on religious grounds, but I think they also have to realize that if there is a distinct majority on the matter, like there is in MA, they should start to seek alternative means to discourage the act from happening, such as anti-stem cell promotional campaings or grouping citizens to refuse to use stem cell-grown organs. Posted by: Art at March 31, 2005 06:29 PMI call it faith-based because I can't see how you would come up with the White House position, without bringing metaphysical beliefs into it. It's a free country, so people can vote based on whatever criteria they choose, including metaphysics. I see it as religion impinging on the state, but I don't see it as an establishment of religion, because it doesn't favor any one particular faith. The reason I don't support allowing human clones to be implanted in a uterus and brought to term is not because of issues of the soul, but because it is 1) too unproven regarding safety in mammals and 2) it would be a form of arrogance for adults to produce identical copies of themselves (I might make an exception in the case of parents attempting to clone a dying child) Regarding the slippery slope argument, the law itself does not open the door to producing cloned infants. Arguably, making therapeutic cloning commonplace would make it more likely an unethical scientist would implant a clone into a uterus. However, I think mammalian cloning technology will be commonplace enough that banning therapeutic cloning will not prevent it. Posted by: rickheller at March 31, 2005 06:58 PMit would be a form of arrogance for adults to produce identical copies of themselves (I might make an exception in the case of parents attempting to clone a dying child)How 'bout one who had a devasting injury that him/her paraplegic. Posted by: c3 at March 31, 2005 09:39 PM One thing many Conservative groups are hitting on is that there is no proof of embryonic stem cells saving anyone at all, while ADULT stem cells (which don't carry the same moral baggage), have had a fair share of success stories. Thoughts/Responses to this? Posted by: David Schraub at April 1, 2005 12:29 AMDavid- That is very interesting, I'm understading the situation correctly. However, could you clarify exactly what an adult stem cell is? And if it is simply just a stem cell from an adlut, how does that make it more morally acceptable? Posted by: Art at April 1, 2005 12:36 AMDavid - Michael Fumento makes the point about adult stem cells vs embrionic stem cells in his book "BioEvolution." He was a strong supporter of most genetic engineering with the exception of ESC research. I admit I am unfamiliar with his political position and do not know how objective he is. I have wondered if the sudden push for ESC research is a gut reaction to people who dislike President Bush and therefore support anything he opposes. Posted by: ROA at April 1, 2005 12:39 AMI think it is important to remember that the Bush position doesn't ban ESC research, it limits federal funding to a few existing "lines." Scientists have complained that there are too few lines and some of those are not viable. I'm not sure whether this position is "faith-based," or morality-based. As I recall, the discussion at the time was that the White House was worried that open funding would lead to labs farming embryos, which would be distasteful, at least to me. I believe that I read somewhere that David is right - there has been no success in developing any ESC-based therapies. Whereas adult stem cells have shown some limited promise. I also believe that the term "adult stem cells" include stem cells drawn from the umbilical cord (post-natal). Like ROA, I have often gotten the sense that some folks have used this to paint Bush as anti-science, and in the thrall of fundie Christians, since the previous president had a blanket ban on federal funding for ESC research, and he didn't catch as much heat for that. Posted by: Literally Retarded at April 1, 2005 06:42 AMBy the way, a description of adult stem cells and their function can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cells#Adult_stem_cells Posted by: Literally Retarded at April 1, 2005 06:45 AMHere's a question I really don't have much information about, but which might help inform the debate: Would most scientists today say that adult stem cells have more promise than embryonic stem cells? Posted by: William Swann at April 1, 2005 07:51 AMI think the whole stem cell issue plays into the Terry Schaivo controversy. If it is morally correct to sustain a human life for as long as possible would it not also be morally correct to seek out research that would do the same? Could stem cell research have potentially restored Terry Schiavo's damaged brain? If so, would it be morally correct to ban or limit stem cell research? I believe that stem cell research has great potential to heal and repair the human body, therefore it is in our best interest to see that the research continues. As long as there are guidelines/laws in place for the ethical use of stem cells and stem cell research then we have done what is necessary without greatly impeding future research. We know there will continue to be crossings of these ethical boundaries but hopefully not by U.S. researchers. Posted by: Houston at April 1, 2005 07:52 AMI think William Swann has posed the most important question of this debate. Does anybody have any knowledge on this to share? Posted by: Literally Retarded at April 1, 2005 09:04 AMOne of my favorite short stories, written years ago, concerns cloning. It was written by Greg Egan, and it's called The Extra. The ending is just fantastic , posing questions on the nature of consciousness. The story can be found online. The site that used to have it seems to have bit the dust,. but you can still access it via the google cache of The Extra. I tried it out and it worked, but it took quite awhile for the story to load and build, so be patient if you try it out. But if you want to enjoy a top notch story this weekend, dowload it, print it out, and pull up a chair. I guarantee you won't be disappointed. You'll read it and say, "hey this doesn't very far-fetched at all. In fact, it sounds very near-fetched. Now I'm really worried." So don't take this as a reading assignment. It's a recommendation for a very entertaining and thought provoking way to spend 30-45 minutes. Posted by: bk at April 1, 2005 09:21 AMNote that there is an important distinction on this issue that often gets overlooked/misrepresented. The Administrations position on this issue is to ban FEDERAL FUNDING on new embryonic stem cell lines. This policy has absolutely NO EFFECT on privately funded research or any other research which doesn't use Federal funds. Alot of the press and criticism of the administration on this issue glosses over that fact and makes it sound like the Administration is pursuing a policy that ESC research should be ILLEGAL...... which is absolutely not the case. While I happen to disagree with the Administration on this particular position I appreciate the distinction. There is a VERY LARGE difference between banning people from doing something..... and simply refusing to have the government pick up the bill for it. Posted by: cengel at April 1, 2005 10:47 AMStem cells have no identity or consciousness, feel no pain, have no emotions, no sense of time, space, or pain, why shouldn't they be researched? Stem cell research has the potential to save and improve the quality of a lot of lives. How selfish would we be to deny parapalegics, alzheimer's patients, and countless others suffering from terrible ailments, their UNALIENABLE right to the pursuit of happiness just because we fear what we don't yet understand? Cloning, on the other hand, is the actual creation of a new, fully functioning body. I definitely disagree with growing humans, with or without consciousness, for the harvesting of organs (how creepy would that be?). I really don't think that there is an argument that could convince me that cloning a person is necessary. There are so many environmental factors that go into making a person who they are that there would never really be a way to make an identical copy of a loved one (or yourself for that matter), so what would you gain from it? I think that most people who are unable to let go of a loved one who has passed need to find themselves someone to talk to about their grief, not a copy of the person they lost. Even if it was under the best circumstances and with the best intentions, how healthy could that relationship really be? Besides, I think if a lot of people met themselves in a real-life situation, they really wouldn't get along. Posted by: Rachael Leedy at April 1, 2005 01:11 PMFrom what I have read, I think that the consensus was that embryonic stem cells have more promise because they are more versatile than adult stem cells. But I think that is changing as their research into adult stem cells progresses and they are realizing that adult stem cells are more versatile than previously thought. Either way, the research is too new to make any definitive statements on which are better – adult or embryonic. Cengel – thanks for mentioning the specifics of the Administrations policy. That point has been glossed over, and I think has caused confusion. While I am not a pro-life person, I can certainly appreciate the Administrations position on ESC. I can appreciate the ethical issues that would certainly evolve if ESC research were to become commonplace – especially if it were to become successful in the treatment of certain diseases. If any ECS treatment becomes successful, the creation and fertilization of embryos becomes a capitalist venture, immediately. Big money. So do we permit people to make a living by creating the first stages of human life and then snuffing it out in order to cure someone of paralysis, cancer? What if they discover that fetal stem cells are the best of all options – do we allow people to intentionally get pregnant and abort the fetus for money? I don’t know how I feel about that just now, but I know if it were my husband who was paralyzed or had cancer, I would be pushing for research of any kind. I don’t have any answers here, just lots of questions. I think this is one of those issues that can be debated for eternity, but I don’t think we have that long. Here is a site with some info: Don't know much about this site/owner, but this article was informative. And if it is simply just a stem cell from an adult, how does that make it more morally acceptable?I have mixed feelings about this whole issue but I do beleive the "immediate" or "near-term" benefits of stem-cell research have been way overblown. (No we couldn't have saved Ronald Reagan). I do feel concerned about developing embryos to harvest the stem cells. As for the science, I'm not a geneticist but as stated before embryonic stem cells may have better POTENTIAL for research/therapy. By the was, isn't it odd to argue for stem-cell research because of all the good it will do for humanity and then as an "oh by the way" point out all of the business it will bring "to our state" From Rick's initial post: If all colonies of human cells are to be afforded the protection of human life, it seems to me that we should ban body piercing, circumcision, elective surgery, and any procedure which would destroy human cells. Should we? I don't think that's the issue. It's not protection for all colonies of human cells, just those capable of developing into independ human beings, which effectively excludes anything except for human embryos. There are plenty of grounds to argue for permiting such uses without taking such potshots. Cengel writes: Note that there is an important distinction on this issue that often gets overlooked/misrepresented. The Administrations position on this issue is to ban FEDERAL FUNDING on new embryonic stem cell lines. This policy has absolutely NO EFFECT on privately funded research or any other research which doesn't use Federal funds. Alot of the press and criticism of the administration on this issue glosses over that fact and makes it sound like the Administration is pursuing a policy that ESC research should be ILLEGAL...... which is absolutely not the case. While it is true that the president's order does not implement a ban on ESC research, it is somewhat more expansive than just federal funding of ESC research. Specifically, from what I've read, it also prohibits ESC research at any facility receiving federal funding, irregardless of the funding for the specific ESC project. For instance, a neuroscience lab receiving any federal funding would not be able to conduct ESC research for treating neurodegenerative diseases, even if that part of its operations were privately funded. This is part of the reason that California had to spend so much to start ESC reseach: they could not just sponsor discreet projects at existing, but instead had to start a whole new lab since any existing lab would have to forfeit its federal funding in order to take on such a project. Posted by: Scott Smith at April 2, 2005 11:29 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
