Stem Cells (again...)
I know I've written about this a lot already, but this issue popped up again this week with the Michael J. Fox vs. Rush Limbaugh story. Hmmm....I wonder which side I'll take.
For those not familiar, a quick synopsis: Michael J. Fox appeared on a political ad in Missouri, where a stem cell initiative is to be voted on November 7th. In the ad, Fox is promoting a candidate who supports embryonic stem cell research. He is seen shaking and is clearly affected by his Parkinson's disease. Limbaugh claimed Fox was either off the medication or he was acting during the ad. Limbaugh later apologized.
First, I'll address the obvious. Limbaugh clearly knows nothing about neither Parkinson's nor empathy. It wasn't so long ago that he was dealing with a problem of his own in painkillers. The difference with Fox is that he had no choice in his condition.
Now, to speak to the debate over stem cells, there is no compelling argument to stop embryonic stem cell research. While I respect the right of everyone to have their own opinion, I firmly believe the opposition is wrong in this case. I hear from the opposition that we need to protect life. Where is that protection for the thousands of embryos destroyed today during the in vitro fertilization process?
It is impossible to stop human progress. It is inevitable that embryonic stem cell research will continue. The federal government should take a leadership role and help to regulate this area of research. It's only a matter of time until the federal government gets involved with this progress. The longer it waits, the longer we all wait to see what hope this research may promise.
Comments
"The federal government should take a leadership role and help to regulate this area of research. It's only a matter of time until the federal government gets involved with this progress."
At this time, there are several state programs that contribute a significant amount of funds for stem cell research. The amount that the NIH would supply is eclipsed by these programs. California has 3 BILLION dollars alloted alone. Then there is Israel and South Korea. Frankly, I see no good reason for the Federal government to stir that pot ... there are too many emotions involved and not enough thought. Federalism works, State nannyism fails.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa | October 31, 2006 01:16 PM
The fact that other nations (e.g., Israel and S. Korea) and states are participating in embryonic stem cell research shouldn't prevent the federal government from getting involved. The U.S. as a nation has always been at the bleeding edge of technology...innovation is a part of its heritage. That's not to say states and other nations shouldn't still continue their research, but the NIH, with its resources, could dwarf the amount of individual state contributions.
The research is dangerous enough (e.g., human cloning) and important enough where I believe the federal government should most certainly get involved to help put in place some kind of regulation.
Posted by: J | October 31, 2006 02:04 PM
But ... the NIH does support guided stem cell research: link. There it is ... the rules of the game. It's quite clear too.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa | October 31, 2006 07:01 PM
The stance the President has taken (and which the NIH must follow) is weak. "Guided" stem cell research just means you tie the hands of the researchers by limiting the number of lines they can use. Their policy is clear; it's just the wrong policy.
Posted by: J | November 1, 2006 04:30 AM
I see your point, and unfortunately, the cost of politics is high when mixed with science. If only we could make more use of cord blood with regards to this research. It's avoids all the nonsense and ethics issues ... and it's BOUNTIFUL.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa | November 1, 2006 07:12 PM