May 25, 2005
Understanding The Stem Cell Debate
In an all-too rare demonstration of strong, bipartisan support, members of both Parties in the House of Representatives joined together to overwhelmingly pass a bill to expand federally funded stem cell research. The measure would allow scientists to use stem cells derived from embryos created for in vitro fertilization which otherwise would be destroyed as medical waste. While many applaud the move as step in the right direction, predictably religious conservatives have waved the abortion flag once again.
Is this a fair analogy? Are the religious conservatives right; is using embryonic stem cells in research akin to abortion? I don’t buy the analogy; after all we are not speaking of a human life here, we are speaking potential human life. Every sperm, and every egg is a potential human life. The non-partisan American Progress Action Fund published this explanation of stem cell vs. abortion yesterday in their daily newsletter:
UNDERSTANDING STEM CELLS: Don’t confuse stem cell research with the emotionally charged debate surrounding abortion; they are very, very different issues. An embryo is not a fetus; it's a cluster of about 150 cells, also known as a blastocyst, which forms a few days after the joining of a sperm and egg, and is no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. Within the center of this cluster are the stem cells, which are like biological blank slates. These cells have the potential to become any of the 200 kinds of cells that make up the human body. Many scientists believe stem cell research could one day be used to treat people living in pain with serious illnesses such as spinal injuries, Alzheimer's, strokes, brain injuries, Parkinson's, diabetes and heart defects.
I must admit that I have a personal stake in the outcome of this debate, I have Diabetes and someone very close to me has lived with MS for the past ten years, both ailments that further stem cell research could help cure. The conservative Republicans speak of a culture of life but conveniently forget the life that has already been born.
Does human life cease to have value after a baby is born? Does a group of cells frozen in a Petri dish have (equal) more value than a living breathing, disease stricken human being? A blastocyst is not a human life (although Tom Delay would disagree); it is a grouping of cells that could become a human life if implanted into a viable womb. A sperm is not human life either, it is a group of cells then when joined with an egg could produce a human life. Should they be protected as well, since they have the potential of creating a human life? And if so, how? The sex police? Billions are wasted every time a man uses a condom, every time a man masturbates; should we make condom use and male masturbation illegal under the guise of protecting human life. How far do we as a society want to take this?
George W. Bush and other religious zealots point to adult stem cells as an alternative to those harvested from embryos. But it has been widely reported that adult stem cells are not as viable as those from an embryo. Again the non-partisan American Progress Action Fund published this explanation of adult stem cell vs. embryonic stem cells yesterday in their daily newsletter:
ADULT VS. EMBRYONIC: Bush advocated scientists using adult bone marrow and umbilical cord blood instead of embryonic stem cells. Umbilical and embryonic stem cells “are not in any way interchangeable,” said David Scadden, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and chief of the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Regenerative Medicine and Technology. In a letter sent to President Bush, a group of 80 Nobel laureates agreed, saying “current evidence suggests that adult stem cells have markedly restricted differentiation potential.” The fact remains that stem cells derived from bone marrow and umbilical cord blood have less potential than those from embryos. Adult stem cell lines are difficult to work with and cannot develop – or “differentiate” – into all types of cells like embryonic stem cells can; for example, they are unable to produce insulin-producing cells to fight diabetes. Umbilical stem cells also are only able to develop into “the components of blood – red cells, white cells and platelets.”
Other countries are pulling ahead of the United States in this very critical area of study because we have let religious zealotry invade the body politic and in so doing insinuate itself into public policy. U.S. scientists are going overseas to do research on stem cells and South Korea just announced significant progress towards cloning embryonic stem cells. But this goes far beyond U.S. dominance of the bio-tech industry; it speaks to the very nature of our society.
The debate over stem cells is just one of many battles that pit logic, science and the public good, against religious ideology, and if it continues we all loose. Do we want a forward looking progressive society governed by logic and intelligent discourse, or do we want a society governed by religious ideological passion that will in time end our dominance of science and technology?
V.E.M. said:
The measure would allow scientists to use stem cells derived from embryos created for in vitro fertilization which otherwise would be destroyed as medical waste.
This is untrue. The bill would allow increased federal funding for the same. Scientists are currently allowed to do what they want with embryos (short of growing the clones into mature humans), but taxpayers don’t have to pay for something many of us are still very uncomfortable with. Sounds fair to me, especially since the last thing we need right now is more government spending on anything.
Posted by: Chops at May 25, 2005 02:00 PMMany stem cell advancements have come from adult cells so I’m not saying that science might be able to bypass this ethical debate. But, can we trust this matter to the theologic demagogues and their minion adjudicates?
Who else is afraid that even if this law survives a veto it would be struck down if too many of George II judicial nominees become confirmed?
Posted by: Dave at May 25, 2005 02:12 PMMr. Martin, I am opposed to any more government subsidy of Research and Development for anything except military applications unless the American tax payer gets a royalty on the patents and sales.
It is about time the taxpayers started getting a return on their investment in corporate America.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 25, 2005 02:17 PMChops, I have to reluctantly agree with you on this. If there was a lack of interest by the private enterprise in this kind of R&D, I would have to support it. But, under the circumstances, there is absolutely no need for the taxpayers to underwrite a controversial subsidy for R&D which is already underway in the private sector here and a number of other countries.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 25, 2005 02:19 PMDavid -
Exactly. And it’s not like there’s any shortage of worthy and non-controversial applications for science funding. If NSF ever runs out of projects to fund, then we can say we have a problem of too little research. We may have a variety of different reasons for opposing this funding, but the only argument for federal funding is one firmly rooted in the special interests of the wealthy biomed industry.
Posted by: Chops at May 25, 2005 03:07 PMCouldn’t agree more, Chops. Scary, isn’t it?
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 25, 2005 03:13 PMWhat exactly does the law say? Does it set aside additional money for stem cell research or does it simply allow investigators using embryonic stem cells to compete for NIH funds with people doing other types of projects? If it is the second, then arguments about increased spending are rather irrelevant.
Posted by: brian poole at May 25, 2005 03:17 PMMr. Remer & Chops,
I understand your misgivings here, but this is just too important for the federal government to sit on the sidelines and doing nothing except mumble culture of life rhetoric. Do we want to continue to lead the world in the application of science, medicine, and bio-technology, or do we want to play follow the leader? And David I completely agree that if a government funded program on stem cell research were to make a breakthrough then the advance should belong to the public.
Private industry doe not have the money to lunge headlong into stem cell research; governments, not individual businesses are funding embryonic stem cell exploration in other notable countries. We have wonderful government run and funded scientific institutions, let’s use them!
And Chops, perhaps the Republicans should think about scaling back their tax breaks for the rich in order to fund stem cell research to benefit society as a whole.
Brian—
The bill in its entirely as it passed the House, may be found here: Stem Cell Replenishment Act of 2005
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at May 25, 2005 04:00 PMV.E.M~
I am neither for or against stem cell research. But to answer your question about what kind of a society I want I would have to say one that understands the voice of the people before moving to quickly!
Seeing as my sister is living w/ MS I guess you could say I have a stake in this also, That is why we are gearing up for our annual MS society walk to raise money for research!
Try not to complain about what should be done and do what can be done, that’s what my sis does anyways!
This is a very tough issue. I live with a progressive and terminal respiatory disease. From what I have seen and heard, stem cell technology will address many diseases (thank GOD for that) but not respiratory illnesses.
I should be FOR stem cell research regardless of how it is funded. However, I cannot bring myself to advocate for federally funded stem cell research. I favor the research continuing if funding can be found elsewhere.
Are we leaving ourselves open for controversy even if there is no veto. What happens when Group A demands more time and money because the research shows greater promise to help them than it does Group B. What happens when it will help several groups equally? Will we create waiting lists, will there be a treatment by numbers plan (Because more people have Diabetes than have MS, more of the treatment will focus on Diabetes). Will patient age be a factor (save the young first) Will an Army General or a distinguished Surgeon get preferential treatment? How about people who have more children.
How will it all play out.
Posted by: steve at May 25, 2005 04:36 PMThanks, V. Edward. The link didn’t work for me but I found it anyway. It looks to me like it is just an authorization for stem cell projects to compete, not an increase in funds.
Posted by: brian poole at May 25, 2005 05:05 PMSteve,
These are more treatment issues than research issues, although I’m sure there will be controversy.
Research dollars usually go to whoever has a good research plan and the biggest name in their group. If a particular patient population thinks their problem is more worthy, they organize and fund it through foundations.
If a treatment is found, it will probably go to the rich and better insured first, because that’s how our society functions. Or, if it is considered more like a transplant than a surgery, it could be based on need, like the way the current transplant lists function. I don’t see why it is really that different from any other treatment in this respect. I don’t know if that’s the way it should be, but that’s how it is, and probably will remain.
The sheer hypocrisy of Republicans is beyond belief.
This is just like Nancy Reagan who opposed Stem Cell Research only to change her mind when its HER husband who got sick!!! The vast majority of Republicans who support this only do so because they have a personal stake in it. Those RiightWingers who do not have a friend/relative involved are against abortion and this. ALL of them switch sides when they get sick!!!
While I am sure Bush Junior will allow Stem Cell Research when his own Father falls ill, I am glad he will veto it now. I am weary of all this double standard. Let the Religious Nuts make real sacrifices for their God!!! LET US BAN STEM CELL RESEARCH!!!
Posted by: Aldous at May 25, 2005 09:04 PMAs I read this section, I began to think that federally funded stem-cell research should not be allowed, that instead it should remain privately funded. This was because I thought that the tax money of those people who are against the research should not go towards that which they are morally against, just as pacifists should not be drafted into the army. However, I then remembered how those pacifists still have to pay their taxes towards those very same wars that they are against. Wars, usually, cost more lives than will be “lost” in stem cell research, and at least good can come from this research while none can come from war. Therefore, I see no need in blocking federal funding.
Posted by: Ryan at May 25, 2005 09:26 PMAldous, what would you have us do? Make all the Republicans terminally ill so they see “the light?” Pointing out the hypocrisy of so called values when there is a personal stake is pointless because you can’t really do anything about that, and it doesn’t sway the people who are against stem cell research anyways.
Since this is about federally funded stem-cell research, I’m going to have to side against it. The government can do many things but this doesn’t strike me as one of those things… However, I do support the general research of the properties and potential uses of stem-cells.
Aldous, what would you have us do? Make all the Republicans terminally ill so they see “the light?”
Is that possible? JUST KIDDING!
You know what’s wacky about this? Bush won’t veto the out of control spending that’s racking up record setting debt. He won’t veto one-shot bills that usurp state’s rights or interfere in personal family decisions. He didn’t veto the worst-written, most expensive entitlement expansion in my memory, or object to even the most egregious suspension of freedom clauses in the PATRIOT Act.
And yet, he’s going to veto - his first veto ever - a measure that could lead to cures for many horrible diseases (and as a bonus, add some jobs to the economy). Wacky.
American Pundit:
Don’t you know? God talks to Bush. Ergo, Stem Cell Research must DIE!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Aldous at May 26, 2005 06:31 AMSome people believe a fertilized egg (blastocyst) is a human being. Is that technically correct? A blastocyst is a fertilized egg. If that’s so, why is it OK to freeze them and then destroy them later as medical waste? Not that two wrongs make a right.
|
| V.E.M. wrote:
| A sperm is not human life either,…
|
I don’t see many (if anyone) arguing that a sperm or unfertilized egg is a human being.
Does stem cell research have to use fertilized eggs? Aren’t there other known sources that are equally viable? Then, we could avoid this issue altogether.
Personally, I don’t see the blastocyst as a human being yet, because it still only contains information needed to become a human being. There is no brain and no consciousness yet. There is merely the information to potentially become a human being. But, I know many are going to argue this point endlessly, which is why, if possible, it would be better to find other viable options (if they exist).
_____________________________________
DEFINITION: Blastocyst
Fertilization normally occurs within the uterine tube. About twenty-four hours after the “zygote” is formed, it divides, giving rise to two daughter cells. These cells, in turn, divide to form four cells, these divide into eight cells, and so forth. With each division, the resulting cells are smaller and smaller. The distribution of the zygote’s contents into smaller and smaller cells is called cleavage, and the cells produced in this way are called “blastomeres.” The mass of cells formed by cleavage is still enclosed in the original egg cell, and in about three days it consists of a solid ball called “morula.” The morula enters the uterine cavity and remains unattached for about three more days, at which time the morula develops a fluid-filled cavity. Once the cavity appears, the morula becomes a hollow ball of cells called a “blastocyst.” Within the blastocyst, cells in one region group together to form an inner cell mass that eventually becomes the embryo.
_____________________________________
egg + sperm -> fertilized egg -> blastocyst
blastocyst:
Traci—
I failed to see how asking that yet another avenue of research be opened in order to find a cure of MS and other debilitating diseases can be classified as “complaining.” And me and mine give to and support the MS Foundation and do the walks as well. My wife lives with MS every second, of every minute of every day of her life, and I live it every day through her. I see what it does to her, and we both have to live with the aftershocks and by-products of this nasty chronic diseases. As you know, or should know, MS affect each person differently; for my wife it means unceasing fatigue which stopped her life in its tracks; she had to quit work and college, and go on disability. And there are countless other ways MS affects our life together. So yes if there is a way embryonic stem cell research can help her, then I am all for it.
Get off the fence, gain some courage and make a stand for or against, but please don’t accuse me of complaining!
D.A.N.
Thank you for the illustrations…
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at May 26, 2005 10:05 AMAldous~
Kind of like all of my mothers Democratic friends that are now closing in on the end of life, scrambling to make sure their families get their money instead of the government? I guess they were voting taxes in for other people….not themselves, silly me.
V.E.M.~
I will not get into a discussion about who suffers more with what disease.
The simple thruth of the matter is with regulations as they are with experimental drugs and treatments, the reality is even with stem-cell research it would probably not be available for our loved ones any ways. I still believe this is an issue that the American people need to discuss and decide!
Traci, not according to Republicans. They really believe in this Republic stuff which grants them the right to discuss and decide for us, whether we agree with them as a majority or not.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 26, 2005 11:17 AMP.S., havent seen the Democrats make any moves toward more direct democracy either. But, before everyone’s shorts get in a twist, if we were to move toward more direct democracy, we would still need a check and balance like the Senate to insure the populace does not passionately head run off a cliff.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 26, 2005 11:19 AMRepublic vs Democracy
_____________________
In a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government’s only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.
….
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and never will be.” —
Thomas Jefferson, 1816.
_____________________
Strictly speaking, one is rule-by-law and one is rule-by-majority.
What we actually have in the U.S., fortunately, is a combination of both. Pure democracies always self-destruct when the majority ignores basic rights. Democracy must be constrained by basic laws that protect basic rights, and the majority can never be allowed to violate those basic rights (defined in the Bill of Rights).
And, in all things, the following are required:
[X] respect for basic rights,
[X] common-sense (versus ignorance),
[X] ethics (secured by transparency and accountability),
[X] and some degree of trust required to move forward
This topic boils down to two questions:
_________________
(1) When does a fertilized egg become a human being? Some will argue that it is at the very instant the egg becomes fertilized. Some will argue that it is in much later stages in which organs and consciousness develop.
_________________
(2) Regardless of whether life begins at the instant the egg becomes fertilized or some time between fertilization and the blastocyst stage, is there any justifiable reason to use the embryo for other purposes to treat medical problems?
_________________
Either way, it doesn’t really matter anyway.
Other countries are going to develop cures anyway, and it will be done by private funding if not by government funding. It’s inevitable, and it’s going to happen, regardless of those that oppose it.
But, what will be very interesting to see is what those in opposition now, do someday in the future, if and when they or a loved-one are stricken by some disease that is curable via a result of stem cell research.
What will the current opposers do when a disease befalls them, and they have the choice to:
(a) go to another country to get a cure?
(b) or remain in the United States and reject the cure and stay true to their morals?
And how hypocritical is that, when:
(1) 24,000 people die every day from hunger.
(2) 8,000 people die every day from AIDS.
(3) people die every day from toxic pollution.
(4) 120 people die every day in auto accidents in the U.S.
(5) thousands are dying in the current war.
(6) many people are accidentally killed by collateral damage, and security is insufficient to protect innocent citizens.
(7) many elderly die every year due to hot weather and cold weather, and insufficient and inadequate care.
(8) thousands die every day due to increasingly unaffordable and unreliable health care due to government meddling.
(9) and the government could have prevented 9/11 had the government been doing even a half-assed job of it.
It seems that:
(a) if you want something totally mismanaged and fouled up, let the government do it. They’re experts.
(b) but, if you want something done right, let anyone but the government do it.
I submit that “it becomes a human being” when you decide it has to be aborted. Otherwise you’re right it’s just an egg and almost all women have them and do nothing to get rid of them!(I believe that is the true reason of having an abortion right? To not have a child.)
Posted by: Traci at May 26, 2005 03:50 PMI can’t believe that there is even debate about this. Stem cell research can help sick people. So do it. Don’t bring religion into this. If there is a God (and based on the actions of his/her followers I’m not so sure some days), then I’m willing to bet that he/she wants us to make sure that our fellow humans don’t suffer. We can reduce that suffering with treatments and research involving stems cells. Put your dogmatic beliefs to bed and start helping people.
Unfortunately, some hypocrites will fight to keep a blastocyst (which has no consciousness; it’s merely a few cells at that point) from being used for stem cell medical research, but won’t lift a finger to help the millions of starving, dying, and suffering every day. Once you’re born already, you’re just another sinner and you’re on your own. Good luck. And even if they do decide to do something about anything, it’s usually with your (the taxpayers) money, and what ever they do, it we be the typical half-ass job they always do.
Oh….excuse me…that’s right…
it’s all the Republicans fault.
What? No…it’s all the Democrats fault.
No. It’s both their fault. Come on voters…wise up. Otherwise, it’s your fault if you continue to empower them (the elitist Congress and Executive Branch) to keep doing it to ya !
Posted by: d.a.n at May 26, 2005 05:21 PMI’ve always thoguht the abortion debate was inappropriate for the national level. Essentially, it boils down to the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the child. If the child is nothing more than a mass of cells, then the mother’s freedoms win out. If the child is determined to be a human being, then abortion becomes murder — which is a state crime, NOT A FEDERAL ONE!
As for making the choice of whether the child is a human being with rights to be respected, let’s look at precidents. We’re asking if someone (the embryo/fetus/baby) has basic human rights protected under our Constitution. That question was asked at a federal level on at least two other occasions — regarding slavery, and regarding women’s suffrage. In both cases, the federal government required a Constitutional Amendment to have any authority to answer the question. Without those Amendments, it was not a federal issue.
Such is the same with abortion. What makes it a federal issue?
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 26, 2005 05:31 PMAlso, it’s important to point out that most people that had a large percentage of these blastocysts left over after their in-vitro-fertilizations, wanted to donate them to stem-cell research or simply be discarded (i.e. destroyed). No one ever had a problem with them being discarded. The hypocrites only caused an uproar when stem cell research came along; not when they were being discared (destroyed).
Posted by: d.a.n at May 26, 2005 05:34 PMPosted by Rob Cottrell at May 26, 2005 05:31 PM
Also, it’s important to point out that most people that had a large percentage of these blastocysts left over after their in-vitro-fertilizations, wanted to donate them to stem-cell research or simply be discarded (i.e. destroyed). No one ever had a problem with them being discarded. The hypocrites only caused an uproar when stem cell research came along; not when they were being discared (destroyed).
——
That’s exactly what bugs me. With any of these debates (abortion, stem cells, Schiavo) the “religious right” only gets involved when the have a chance to make a “moral” issue out of it. They don’t care about starving pregnant women in the projects who’s babies will die if a social program gets cut, but they will be damned if they allow her to abort it before it develops into a full-fledged fetus. How can these people live with themselves? Are they psychopaths or just really, really stupid? It blows my mind that so many people don’t get it and actually vote for these mouth-breathers who put their religion before other’s human rights.
Posted by: Buck Fush at May 26, 2005 07:43 PMI think the point about the controversy is right. If the Embryos not being chosen are chosen to be destroyed, there should at least be some good to come out of that destruction, rather than nothing.
But in terms of the rhetoric, I’d just as soon people calm down. The last thing we need is more name-calling and recrimination.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2005 09:15 PMDavid R. Remer wrote:
Mr. Martin, I am opposed to any more government subsidy of Research and Development for anything except military applications unless the American tax payer gets a royalty on the patents and sales.
It is about time the taxpayers started getting a return on their investment in corporate America.
I’ve done research in both academia and industry and I think it’s important to understand the value of federally funded research. The best way to view the NSF and NIH is that they fund the basic research that is the intellectual infrastructure of our intellectual property driven industries. The investment in this infrastructure is like the investment the government makes in roads and bridges; it?s truly a public good. Access to this information, published in scientific journals and the like, allows private industry to find applications for this research. The free market is supposed to ultimately determine the value of those applications.
At least that’s they way it’s supposed to work in principle.
My point is, taxpayers do get a huge return on this investment, just like they get a huge return on the investment in roads and bridges. It enables innovation, encourages employment and leads to the technological breakthroughs that keep America on the forefront of technology. Without this investment, we’d force private industry to do everything from scratch, which would simply never be possible.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve found something in the open literature which has got me thinking about some problem I’m trying to solve in a new way. The result is an innovative solution that no one had ever come up with before.
Getting back to the point at hand. I believe government funding for stem cell research is important for a couple of reasons. First, private industry is not going to be too interested in such a risky venture because there is no business model for the final product. What do you sell? Where is the return on the investment? The days of Bell Labs doing research for the sake of research are long gone. There’s got to be some product to sell at the end of the rainbow.
Secondly, it’s already happening elsewhere. We can either choose to allow the rest of the world to take the lead (and force the best and brightest scientists in our own country to find citizenship elsewhere) or not.
My $0.02
-Dave
One Does NOT Need to be Conservative, Republican,
Religious, or Anti-abortion to be AGAINST STEM CELL RESEARCH
I have been a long time democratic supporter. However, growing, harvesting and destroying human embryos for any purpose, especially a purpose that ultimately will generate profits for business owners, is grotesque and inhumane. Thinking of this is like something in a sci-fi movie where humanity is totally lost.
I am AGAINST supporting farming of human embryos. In support of human-kind, you should be against it also.
I wholeheartedly agree with DRA,
A) This bill opens the opportunity for stem cell research to compete against other avenues of research. It does not demand additional funding, just provides for competition.
B) There are hundreds of government R&D programs (For instance, psychic spies… No, I’m not kidding) that have a far smaller chance of showing results. The reason we have the internet is because we pursue purely academic research that often ends up with spectacular results.
C) We do recieve dividends from government research, in the form of having the biggest economy on the earth. How much of our GDP is due to Microsoft, which (again) can thank it’s bottom line on government research into computing and the internet.
Why is Nigeria ground zero for the new wave of polio cases across the world? Because it allowed religious zealots to set its national policy, and its reaping the results.
We ARE a nation of pragmatists, a nation of moderates. We constantly find ourselves whip-sawed between the radical right and the radical left. It’s time to put these people in their place, and get on with running this country.
Thanks god for the 14 senators, and the moderate Republicans in the House! Let’s hope this is a sign of the rise of the center!
Julia
Posted by: Julia at May 26, 2005 11:10 PMOne Does NOT Need to be Conservative, Republican, Religious, or Anti-abortion to be AGAINST STEM CELL RESEARCHI have been a long time democratic supporter. However, growing, harvesting and destroying human embryos for any purpose, especially a purpose that ultimately will generate profits for business owners, is grotesque and inhumane. Thinking of this is like something in a sci-fi movie where humanity is totally lost.
I am AGAINST supporting farming of human embryos. In support of human-kind, you should be against it also.
Posted by: D H at May 26, 2005 11:07 PM
I agree that farming embryos for corporate profit is unethical, but that is not really the issue being debated. In this case the embryos are from fertiltiy clinics, have no brains or consciousness at all and would be discarded/destroyed. In fact, President Bush’s attitude toward stem cell funding through private funds instead of public funds is more likely to create this horror scene of yours; governmently funded stem cell research would not sell embryos to the highest bidder like a corporation might. In order to prevent this, government should fund research itself so it can keep Corporations from mass farming human life.
Posted by: Warren P at May 27, 2005 12:30 AMD H,
I am AGAINST supporting farming of human embryos. In support of human-kind, you should be against it also.
Eh, is there a particular reason you feel stem-cell research is an affront to human kind? If anything, it seems to me that it would help better the lives of humans, not the opposite…
Again, just help me understand your reasoning…
Posted by: Zeek at May 27, 2005 11:25 PMThe interesting part of this debate will occur after someone here or abroad actually discovers a use for embryonic stem cells.
1) Will the FDA approve the treatment?
2) Will medicare and medicaid pay for the treatment?
It should be an interesting debate. I guess we’ll find out the meaning of pro-life.
As far as the ethics go, I think if you can ethically justify an abortion to save the life of the mother, it’s not too far of a leap to justify the “death” of a blastocyst to save the life of a Parkinson’s disease patient. Either way embryonic life, if it is indeed life, is sacrificed to prolong the life of an adult.
The real ethical dilemma lies in the creation of life for the express purpose of ending it to prolong the life of someone else. For those that believe that a blastocyst is not human life, there is no dilemma. For those that don’t, the dilemma is real. Unfortunately, the definition of life is a subjective one not addressable by science.
For those who fret over this dilemma, the answer is not to bury our heads in the sand and hope that it goes away. Someone, somewhere, will probably figure out a way to use embryonic stem cells to treat some disease. We will have to come to grips with this new reality sooner or later. Tomorrow will come.
I would urge those opposed to this type of research to reflect that organ transplants were once considered immoral. Use of pig heart valves in heart surgery was considered immoral. Treating syphilis was considered immoral. Some folks think researching a cure for AIDS would be undoing God’s punishment on homosexuals. The idea that the Sun revolves around the Earth was once considered so central to theology that to say otherwise was blasphemy. I can go on and on.
My purpose is not to catalog a list of the follies of the religious right throughout history. Nor do I wish to diminish the ethical dilemma. Instead I want to point out that we, as individuals and as a society can adapt to scientific breakthroughs without becoming inhuman. We have throughout history; we will do so again. Take heart (pig valve not included)
-Dave
DRA said: “My point is, taxpayers do get a huge return on this investment, just like they get a huge return on the investment in roads and bridges.”
Your point, with respect, is wrong in its logic. Yes, taxpayers support roads and bridges, but, they are not then asked, after the roads and bridges are built, to competitively bid on the access to travel those roads and bridges.
Stem cell research will lead to very pricey cures for those who can afford it, and leave those who can’t afford out their tax dollars and no affordable cure. If tax dollars underwrite cures, the royalties returned to the government will help insure tax payers have access to the cure regardless of their low paying income.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 28, 2005 08:46 AMFolks, look. We have a Medicare/Medicaid insovlency issue. Why is no one in Congress or the Whitehouse looking for a solution.
A huge part of that solution simply has to be making the tax paying public royalty owners in medical products which arise through the use of tax dollars.
Everyone complains taxes are too high. B.S. The truth is, they are too high for what the tax payer gets in return. When the US Taxpayer pays for R&D, that taxpayer should get something back for their tax dollar besides deeper in national debt. We have simply got to make the taxpayer an investor and force any private enterprise that wants tax payer dollars to support their efforts to make the taxpayer an investor with a royalty and part patent owner in the discoveries and products developed with taxpayer dollars.
This is a huge part of the solution to funding programs like Medicare/Medicaid in the future and preventing health care from bankrupting the government or splitting our citizens into those who can and can’t afford to live due to health care access.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 28, 2005 08:56 AMIt’s highly improbable that government could ever do anything efficiently enough to make a profit, in view of their track-record and the huge number of problems currently being ignored (such as Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, $8 trillion national debt), health care crisis, energy vulnerability, election fraud, barriers to third/other parties getting on ballots, crumbling infrastructures, terrorism, insecure borders and illegal aliens/trespassers, looming bankruptcy of the Government Pension Benefit Guaranty Group, plundered pension plans, a ridiculously unfair and abused tax system, apathetic voters (understandably so), declining public education, a dysfunctional and legal system, dysfunctional and corrupt government, investor/stock fraud, failure to uphold the Constitution, foreign policy that alienates allies, global warming, the race-to-the-bottom via out-sourcing and exploitation, discrimination based on religion, race, gender, age, wealth, and sexual preference, insufficient/absent/perverted law enforcement, etc. (the list is too long)).
The reason politicians are not looking for solutions is because that would mean they would have to do something they’ve never done before. Based on track-record, history, and avoidance of solving problems, government’s purpose has been to create problems; not solve them.
Even though many good solutions exist, politicians will never do anything but bicker and squabble about the problems endlessly, while cleverly (by design) distracting voters from the pressing problems, cleverly seducing voters into the petty partisan bickering, while trying to appear to be doing hard and very complex work, while actually doing nothing (actually worse than nothing), while the many pressing problems facing our nation grow and grow in number and severity, because the politicians are too busy creating new problems and cleverly avoiding work to solve existing problems.
Voters endlessly demand more responsibility and accountability, but it is unrealistic to ever expect parasites to do anything except what parasites naturally do…suck the life out their victims (voters).
And, some (not many) politicians wish voters would vote out the elitist, arrogant trash, but it may be unrealistic to ever expect the voters (i.e. sheep, cattle) to open their eyes, see the root problem, and do one simple thing to put an end to it.
____________________
It’s clear that the stem-cell research opposers, on one hand, will fight against the use of blastocysts (a few hundred living cells (mostly only information); not a conscious human being, since is has no organs or brain) for research that could help millions, but on the other hand, will engage in all other sorts of unethical behavior, simultaneously, that reveals their true hypocrisy. If only these opposers expended a small fraction of that misdirected energy to stop the countless existing injustices for which no one is arguing the morality.
Fortunately, stem cell research and cures will be developed anyway, and it does not need government to help it (i.e. more like help screw it up). Will those that currently and vehemently oppose the development of cures via stem-cell research using blastocysts, later, reject those cures later when they are stricken with some disease?
David R. Remer wrote:
Your point, with respect, is wrong in its logic. Yes, taxpayers support roads and bridges, but, they are not then asked, after the roads and bridges are built, to competitively bid on the access to travel those roads and bridges.
I disagree. Let’s explore the analogy further. I personally can use bridges and roads in the way I see fit without paying a fee (at least most of them). Likewise, I can also access any of the scientific knowledge in the scientific literature. There is no fee to read these journals; they’re freely available in most university libraries and even some public libraries. So yes, the public has access to scientific knowledge the same way the public has access to use roads and bridges.
If I just copy what someone else has figured out and published, there isn’t any innovation and I can’t get a patent. If I take that existing knowledge and build upon it, if I innovate, then I’ve created something new that is my invention.
If a company figures out how to use a road or a bridge to make a profit, they do so. That’s why you have to pay to use UPS. They make a profits off of using roads and bridges. UPS, trucking companies and the like use a pubic good (roads and bridges) to make money; the reason they are able to do so is that they have found an innovative way of using that public good and created a service (product) that is useful. Intellectual property driven industries like biotech, phama, aerospace, materials, do the same thing with academic research.
Access to the knowledge is free just like access to roads and bridges is free. The application of the knowledge (if it’s innovative) is not free, just like it’s not free to have things delivered by UPS. I’ll admit it’s not a perfect analogy, but I think it’s as good as I can come up with.
For what it’s worth.
Did you know that frozen dinners is a government funded R&D project? And that the reason they are so cheap, is the advancement in freezing processes for each type of food? Did you know that our (quite excellent) food packing industry got the majority of its knowledge from government R&D?
R&D is the LAST thing we should harp on with the government. Corporations spend their money on advertising, then they spend it on R&D. The greatest innovations of the last 100 years consistently come from government R&D programs. We owe a large portion of our domininance across several industries because of this type of money spent.
And I have a good friend who is alive today only because of advancements in cancer radiation therapy that is being funded by a Washington program. The vaunted private cancer hospitals here in the U.S. told him to go home and die. It was a government R&D program that told him they might have something to save him.
Two years, cancer free.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at May 28, 2005 01:50 PMDavid,
If we had nationalized healthcare, or at least medicare/medcaid that works, like every other industrialized country in the world, we all would benefit from the reseach by knowing that we won’t have to fear diseases like Diabetes, Muscular Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s as well as others. Like DRA’s analogy on roads and bridges, we all can drive on them at no cost in addition to taxes, provided we have a drivers license. Likewise, if we have nationalized healthcare, or at least a medicare/medicaid that is effective in guaranteeing that all of us can access healthcare, we all can have stem cell treatments to cure the disease that ails us and reenter society as a fully functioning member not disabled by any of the above diseases. Thus the “return” would be in the form of longer lives instead of monetary.
Posted by: Warren P at May 28, 2005 01:53 PMWarren P, but you failed to register the main point I made. Medicare/Medicaid is already unaffordable. And 40+ million Americans don’t have health insurance and that number is only going to continue to grow.
So, where will the money come from. Higher taxes or royalties /patent refunds back to the taxpayers for the loan of their tax dollars to develop a marketable product or service? There just are not a whole lot of other options besides just letting the poorer folks drop dead for lack of ability to afford medical help.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 28, 2005 04:39 PMDavid,
The average yearly medical expense per American is $5000. That means, that if we each paid our fair share in taxes… we’d have to come up with $5000 for every year of our lives. Even with the wealthy subsidizing the poor, I don’t see how we can afford $5000 per person. $20,000 for a family of four? $350,000 over a 70 year lifespan? Universal health care could cut the expense to $4400 a person. Still… that’s at least 12% of average yearly wages.
On the other hand, that’s why all other industrial countries have higher taxes. They simply pay an extra 12% for full-boat coverage. That figure is pretty typical across the board. I think some have got it down to 9%.
In any case, it seems as if all of the objectors to stem cell research being able to compete for federal dollars have slipped away. Guess this isn’t as big of an issue as the extremist right thinks it is.
Julia, quite right and thanks for the data.
The spiraling medical costs can’t be viewed in a snapshot. It must be viewed along a timeline, past, present, and future, must accept the national debt as a context, and any solution has to include mechanisms for revenue that are linked as much as possible to health care costs.
We would not be alarmed by Medicare/Medicaid if our national debt were zero. If it were zero, we would have 8 trillion dollars with which to support the health care needs of Americans.
But, the national debt exists and increasing it will benefit no one on the timeline from present to future. I mean, what good is national health care if the US is defaulting on its debts, eh? Therefore, we must be looking for a solution that both reins in the rate of health care inflation, as well as identifying revenue streams that will support future demand for health care, for all.
That is why I am convinced that a half a percent royalty and patent ownership share in all medical products that result from tax dollar sponsored Reasearch and Development must be part of the solution. That half percent would stay in the US instead of into foreign investor pockets from treasury investments.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 29, 2005 03:46 PMOn the other hand, It just occured to me that I pay about $1100 a year with a $2500 deductible, and $2600 a year with a $500 ded for my husband. My friends with employment health insurance proably get $300 a mos health coverage with copays ($3600 a year, plus probably $600 in expenses).
Maybe the solution is to have universal health coverage with a $5000 deductible. You don’t get sick, you don’t pay any money. And at worse you owe $5000. You can get an automatic government loan for that, and maybe apply for a medical grant if you’re especially poor. How does that sound?
Even when I was making under $12K a year, a $5000 debt for an appendectomy would have been fine by me. It was the $100K medical bill I was fearful I’d get stuck with. $5K for a bad year is not out of reach.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at May 29, 2005 07:29 PMThe constitutional argument regarding the federal funding of scientific research is certainly valid. Of course the logical end of this argument (contrary) would be the dismantling of organizations like the NIH. It is clearly too late for that.
We should take politics out of the equation. If we do that then I how could one justify that a blastocyst is entitled to all the rights and protections of the US Constitution? Perhaps I made that too easy: Explain how a rapidly dividing cell mass is entitled to all the rights and protections afforded by the US Constitution? I’ll grant you that life has certainly begun but not to the extent that any reasonable person believes that it posses the same rights as fetus/baby. Where we draw that line would probably be somewhere along substantial neuro-development, which would still be relatively early for a NARL crowd but to hell with them they are as bad as the fundamentalists.
Matthew DuPree, I agree with you entirely that although a blastocyst, or even a sperm or an ovum for that matter, is technically “life” because they are living human cells. There is no “being” inside them aside from a possible religious “soul”. The Constitution protects the rights of persons and a mass of cells with human DNA should not constitute as a person. I am in concurrence with you that personhood and the development of a “being” happens when a fetus’s neuological system is developed and a brain with the same capacity as an infant’s brain is formed.
Religiously speaking, I believe that a brain is a prerequisite for a soul to form or be created by God; the soul is a part of the mind and the mind is a part of the brain in my opinion.
Posted by: Warren P at May 30, 2005 01:48 PMMatthew and Warren:
I presume your argument in this case is based upon the fact that a blastocyst does not have the capacity to exercise the rights guaranteed by the constitution, and that giving a blastocyst freedom of speech, and of the press, and the right to assemble, etc etc would be ludicrous?
I find the logic you use problematic. It is equally ludicrous to grant that right to a fully developed fetus in the mother’s womb, or even to a child before the age where they can speak and reason intelligently. Following the logic you have presented strictly, no one should really have constitutional protections until they are of sufficient age and maturity to make use of them. Clearly, this would be untenable however, and go against basic human concepts of decency.
Perhaps you could make an argument as to why the development of the brain to the same capacity as an infants marks the point when a fetus is deserving of the protections of the constitution?
Posted by: Jarin at May 30, 2005 10:25 PMJarin, the Constitution grants Americans born here or naturalized, the protections therein. It does not grant those protections to the Chinese in China, the Iraqis in Iraq, or the fetus in the womb. A fetus in a womb can be born anywhere in the world and would become a citizen in most of the countries in which it is born. A fetus is not yet a citizen of the U.S. and the Constitution nowhere, speaks to the status of the unborn here or in other nations.
Our laws grant citizenship rights and protections to those who are born on American “soil”, even if their parents are not citizens. So, the whole issue of fetus rights, Constitutionally speaking, is a non issue. When the fetus is born, its rights as a citizen are constituted by birth, not by womb status.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 31, 2005 02:33 AMJarin,
The reason I believe brain development is a prerequisite for citizenship is that with the brain’s development, the fetus can have thoughts and desires. As long as someone wants to have a right given by our Constitution, and they are an American Citizen, or a child of American Citizens, they should be given that right. If they do no desire that right, just as how an accused person can waver his or her rights to a lawer, they do not recieve that right.
David Remer,
I agree that the Consitution does not give protections to fetus’s, but I think it should be amended to protect fetuses (not embryos or blastocysts). If a woman does not want to be a mother, they have plenty of time to abort their child before substatial brain development occurs.
Warren:
The reason I believe brain development is a prerequisite for citizenship is that with the brain’s development, the fetus can have thoughts and desires. As long as someone wants to have a right given by our Constitution, and they are an American Citizen, or a child of American Citizens, they should be given that right. If they do no desire that right, just as how an accused person can waver his or her rights to a lawer, they do not recieve that right.
Still problematic. The fetus may be able to have thoughts and desires at that point, but those thoughts are unsophisticated with little understanding of the world except in terms of physical comfort. The very concept of rights would be an alien complexity in their lives, and surely no capacity exists to want them or not want them, and by not wanting them waive them. We do not allow the mentally incompetent to waive their rights, do we? Nor, I think, children without their parent’s permission. But they have the rights, nonetheless.
David:
You misunderstand me. I’m not arguing for constitutional protections in the womb, I’m trying to demonstrate how the rationale being used for such protections at stages of fetal development slip far too easily when the rational basis for them is considered.
Well, Jarin, the rationale for all of our laws are slippery. It’s not as if even a 10 year old has the right to “liberty”. They’re going to school, whether they like it or not. That’s technically slavery, but we all agree that’s fine. In addition, I can force my child to stay home on the weekends without due process. And infringe on their rights to free speech.
Rights change depending on our age and our health. It’s just a pragmatic way to deal with real life.
Posted by: Julia at May 31, 2005 02:24 PMJulia:
Bingo. And pragmatic ways to deal with unwanted pregnancy include, but are not limited to, abortion. As you said, rights change depending on our age and health. Health including, after all, the ability to survive without external aid (life support or a mother’s womb.)
Posted by: Jarin at May 31, 2005 04:38 PM
