Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Proof that John Kerry is Unfit for Command -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (19546)	10/17/2004 1:10:14 AM
From: puborectalis	Respond to of 27181

Series: 21 Reasons to Elect Kerry Healing, ethics can mesh John Kerry is better on stem-cell research than George Bush. In 2001, Bush banned federal funding for stem-cell research on any new cell lines. His policy allowed only 60 older lines already in use in private U.S. labs. Otherwise, no. This policy is wrong for three reasons: It is undemocratic. Bush bypassed true debate, never even going to Congress, and made a decision by fiat, listening primarily to one set of voices out of the many constituencies affected. It is bad for business. It made it harder for our drug companies, research hospitals, and academic labs to compete with those in foreign countries. It forced researchers to leave this country if they wish to work with stem cells. It is based on a fraudulent claim. Bush claimed to be offering a compromise, when that compromise was practically but useless to researchers. Practically but 22 of the lines he allowed are useless - and even those 22 are contaminated or too old. Stem cells are the master cells of the human body. Some have the capacity, correctly prompted, to become almost any tissue: nerve, bone, skin, muscle, organ. How useful control of such cells in human beings could be! Stem-cell science may help treat diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Adult tissues have many kinds of stem cells, but these cells are limited in the number of tissue types to which they can give rise. Umbilical cord blood is a rich source of stem cells, but only those that can give rise to blood-making cells. Right now, the only source of stem cells able to give rise to all the tissue types in the human body is the human embryo. And that's the focus of the ethical debate. About 400,000 embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization attempts sit frozen at fertility clinics. Using cells from those embryos to begin new stem-cell lines would be a boon to medical research. In 2001, the Bush administration's initial impulse was to ban all stem-cell research. The President didn't offer Americans a chance to work through these issues together. He announced policy after a closed process, in which one sectarian viewpoint had privileged input. Were it not for the principled stand of Sen. Bill Frist (R., Tenn.), both Senate majority leader and a physician, we might have seen a blanket ban. True, scientists who don't use federal money are unaffected. But federal money is the fuel for most cutting-edge research. Thus this policy threatens U.S. leadership in science and medicine. No wonder the administration now is getting deserved heat from Republican senators such as Frist, Orrin Hatch of Utah, and John McCain of Arizona, as well as business and academe. To see a middle ground, consider the Centre for Life (http://www.centreforlife. co.uk), in Newcastle, United Kingdom. There, the British government owns the stem-cell lines and issues all licenses for stem-cell research. Researchers must submit detailed proposals to a strict ethics review board. Severe penalties await anyone who breaks the rules. Note that last one. Objectors claim that if we allow experiments using human embryos, we have stepped onto a "slippery slope" that leads inevitably to human cloning. But in the words of Christopher Reeve, of course there's a way to prevent cloning: "Ban it, regulate it, and enforce it." Let the law stipulate: This far and no further. President Bush keeps saying that stem-cell research "destroys life to save life." More accurately, it takes a particle of life and causes it to replicate its best aspects. If not used for stem cells, these embryos would in fact be destroyed or forever frozen. Is that a better way to honor life than using these cells to fight disease? Cloning, as Kerry has said repeatedly, is always wrong. He says he won't allow it. While honoring the claims of faith, Kerry has decided, rightly, that the suffering millions have a right to see vigorous research done in their names. He would give stem-cell research the federal support it deserves. Demanding high ethical standards and accountability, he would lift the ban and allow government to fund research with new stem-cell lines. Kerry's stand is more honest. It's better for business. It respects the values of science, while being mindful of the moral concern we all should have about our rapidly changing technological age. It is a far superior course for the nation - and for those who suffer and deserve hope.