In 2007, President Bush issued an executive order requiring the government to fund research into alternatives. Inexplicably ”“ and without discussing it in his speech ”“ Obama revoked this Bush order, too. He claimed he wants to fund such research, but what he did was take away the existing legal requirement that it be done. We have seen this same undermining of alternatives here in California. Last year, Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) introduced a bill (SB 1565) that would have, among other provisions, made it easier for the CIRM to fund IPSC research. That proposed legal shift in emphasis was opposed adamantly by the CIRM, and despite overwhelming bipartisan support, fell to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s veto.
If pursuing the best and most ethical science were truly the goals, why deflect increased support for this promising research to which no one objects? Perhaps it is because this debate involves more than stem cells taken from embryos “left over” from in-vitro fertilization ”“ as the argument is usually couched ”“ which brings us back to ethics. In the wake of the Obama changes in federal policy, the New York Times editorially threw down a gauntlet, calling for both the rescission of the Dickey Amendment and federal funding of human therapeutic cloning research. Now that the Bush restrictions are history, look for these battles ”“ which again are not science debates ”“ to flare in the years to come. In this sense, embryonic stem cell research threatens to become a launching pad to an ever-deepening erosion of the unique moral status of human life.
One of the commentator dismissed this essay as a “rant.”
[blockquote] That essay was about as far as ranting as I could possibly imagine. Scientists have proved themselves terrible ethicists in the past. So to dismiss all ethics discussions as “rants” is dangerous, indeed.
Two points: “Embryonic” stem cells are often fetal stem cells. That may or may not pose a problem with some of the readers here, but I do not think that it is a coincidence that people are now talking about not wanting to “waste” perfectly good organs from aborted fetuses/babies.
Second, private money is indeed drying up for embryonic stem cell research. Why? Because private money goes to what works. There have been hundreds of in vivo and in human experiments of somatic stem cells. There have been none for embryonic stem cells. Somatic stem cells are derived from either the patient’s own tissue (thereby reducing rejection problems) or placental cord blood. Somatic stem cells have proven to be much more dependable and don’t lead to ugly tumors in brain stems or spinal cords.[/blockquote]