|
|
|
|
|
 "What Price Now, Harvesters?"
08/15/2001
|
|
|
It’s a damned-if-you-do and a damned-if-you-don’t issue. While some farmers in the U.S. are
paid to not grow certain crops, others, in more high-tech areas are arguing for the right
to harvest-at-will. In this case, however, the harvesters are not farmers; rather, they
are scientists working in Petri dishes, and the potential cost for this harvesting could
be as much as life itself, especially for the crop: stem cells.
Debate over President Dubya Bush’s decision to allow limited experimentation with stem
cells to proceed broke out on the alt.religion.christian newsgroup. Pirate Scott wrote,
“All this seems to be to me is a rationalization of abortion and a further degradation of
human life." He continued, noting that many people are wondering why, “if these cells are
available elsewhere, why even risk controversy and ethical problems by using embryos?"
Pirate Scott’s remarks were soon answered. AntiSocial began to offer what sounded like an
overview for a marketing class about supply-and-demand. “It has to do with availability
and viability," AntiSocial wrote, noting that although stem cells may be obtained from
umbilical cords, “the yield is so insignificant it's not worth the time and effort.
Besides, if you only get cells that way…." He also argued that frozen embryos are “the
only way to have them [stem cells] on demand."
What’s the all the brouhaha about stem cells? Well, you see, stem cells are extracted,
typically from embryos, and what’s the best source of embryos? You guessed it: from an
abort fetus, which, in turn, brings this nation, once again, back to the pro-life vs.
pro-choice debate.
Writing in an Op-Ed piece in the Sunday New York Times on August 12, Bush said, "We
do not end some lives for the medical benefit of others," the president wrote. "For me,
this is a matter of conviction -- a belief that life, including early life, is biologically human, genetically distinct and valuable."
At issue is Bush’s decision to allow the continued research on more than 60 stem cell
links that meet his strict ethical standards at laboratories in the U.S. and abroad. Bush
said he based his criteria on conclusions from the National Institutes of Health.
For some researchers, however, the president, as well as the NIH, is wrong.
Clinton supporters are certainly on-hand for any and all media event involving stem cell
research. Dr. Harold Varmus, head of the NIH under Clinton, said researchers require large
quantity of stem cell lines to treat patients with various immune problems.
Limiting the cell lines "would be a very poor investment and a very cruel investment" if
science ended up with stem cells that would be incompatible with many patients, said
Varmus, a Nobel laureate.
In announcing his decision, Bush said that he had allowed enough breathing room for
researchers to permit fruitful research to proceed.
"Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead
to breakthrough therapies and cures," he said, citing such target maladies as diabetes and
Alzheimer's disease.
"This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without
crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or
encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life,"
he said.
The chief argument is that Bush ought allow researchers to pursue stem cell research along
most any cellular line they choose. Well, that’s where they’re wrong, at least from my
shoes. While on a rifle range many years ago in Army basic training, I was told by my
drill sergeant “if you can see a target you can hit it, and if you can hit a target you
can kill it." Well, that really applies to many things in life. You have to have a goal, a
vision, an aim. You have to know where it is you want to go, what you want to do, what
needs to be accomplished, what the end-result should be when you wipe your hands for the
final time. The many people arguing in favor of allowing researchers unlimited access to
stem cell research are saying that cures for many maladies are just over the horizon with
stem cell research. And, do you know what? They could be right. But then again, they could
be terribly wrong.
One proponent for unrestricted stem cell research is the infamous Massachusetts senator
that has a proven record of disregard for human life, the one, and thank God, the only
Edward Kennedy. Sniping his two cents back at Bush’s proposal, Kennedy told one news
organization “Restrictions on this lifesaving research will slow the development of the
new cures that are so urgently needed by millions of patients across America."
If you subscribe to Kennedy’s assertion, new cures are already known, or are believed to
be at hand. You also have to believe that researchers have far more knowledge about stem
cells than they actually do. You have to believe that researchers actually understand the
human genome, that researchers have a full knowledge of the workings of DNA. They don’t,
and what they are looking at doing with stem cells, DNA, and the human genome is find
cures, among other things, for common problems and maladies. In that quest, however, there
has to be some guiding principles and ethics.
Over on the talk.origins newsgroup, Ken Cox and Richard Uhrich debated whether stem cells
ought have any say in this and other debates. The discussion wasn’t really out of the
ordinary, at least not in today’s society where everyone has rights to make all sorts of
choices (see my last column about disabled people having a right to not have been
born for more on this topic). Richard asked, “I take it then that you would
disagree that stem cells should be given voting rights?" In response, Ken noted that he
believed voting rights should be extended to stem cells, but quickly added that he “may
have to re-think that if a stem cell line ever makes it to 18 years old."
In listening to the various sides of this issue, I wonder where the part about ethics
comes into play. When does someone, someone other than Bush, dare mention ethics? Discuss
this issue, and others at my newsgroup: news://newsguy.writers.politicalscoop
|
|
- by Dave Jackson
|
|
| Feature Writer Links: |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
Related
Newsgroups: |
| |
|
alt.religion.christian |
|
az.politics |
|
newsguy.writers.politicalscoop |
|
|
|
