A NY Times Editorial: Mr. Bush’s Stem Cell Diversion

The executive order on stem cells issued by President Bush yesterday seeks to reorient research in new directions that may or may not pay off. But make no mistake, it is no substitute for the bill expanding embryonic stem cell research that Mr. Bush vetoed at the same time because it would involve the destruction of microscopic entities ”” smaller than the period at the end of this sentence ”” that the president deems a nascent form of life.

Both the Senate and the House, which passed the embryonic stem cell bill by comfortable but not veto-proof margins, need to summon the strength to override Mr. Bush’s veto, so that important research into possible cures for Parkinson’s, diabetes and other serious ailments can move ahead.

Mr. Bush knows that most Americans support embryonic stem cell research ”” while his political base does not ”” so yesterday he sought to at least blunt their dismay by touting new scientific studies focused on deriving potent stem cells from amniotic fluid, placentas and the skin of laboratory mice. Some of the alternative work is indeed promising. But almost all scientists in the field consider embryonic stem cell research the most promising. It is foolish to crimp that research by withholding federal funds to placate a minority of religious and social conservatives, including Mr. Bush, who deem the work unethical.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, Life Ethics, Science & Technology

20 comments on “A NY Times Editorial: Mr. Bush’s Stem Cell Diversion

  1. phil swain says:

    “…the President deems a nascent form of life.” The NYT just can’t face the fact that embryology not the President “deems” a human embryo to be a self-regulating and self-directing organism that if properly nutured will develop into a human fetus, a human infant, a human adolescent, etc. A human embryo is the first developmental stage of all human beings including NYT editorial writers.

    “a nascent form of life” has a decidely Orwellian quality.

  2. dwstroudmd+ says:

    The author of the editorial was a nascent form of life at one time. That’s not a belief, that’s a scientific fact. Is he/she/it stepping into the blender to become stem cells for research?

  3. Harry Edmon says:

    Move us to the 1950’s, replace “stem cell research” with “racism”, and conservative with liberal. What do you think?

  4. libraryjim says:

    MOST Americans do not support embryonic stem cell research. The ground swell is against it. More political rhetoric disguised as journalism.

  5. Dave B says:

    # 4 Harry what do you mean? Do you realize that it was Republicans who voted in the Civil Rights Act? A greater percentage of Repubs voted for it than Democrats? Without republican support it would have failed.

  6. Randy Muller says:

    it would involve the destruction of microscopic entities — smaller than the period at the end of this sentence — that the president deems a nascent form of life.

    The writer suggests that human life is less valuable because it is microscopic. Is human life also less valuable because it is non-white? Or non-Protestant? Or somehow otherwise different from the writer?

  7. Harry Edmon says:

    Dave B – I know. I was trying to make by point by using a group the NYT loves. Of course no “true” conservative would or should ever support racism.

  8. austin says:

    Racism, as opposed to simply disliking people different from oneself, was a nineteenth century scientific creation. The “best science” (a term much loved by science journalists) found evidence for a hierarchy of races and assigned black people to the bottom rung. The same science encouraged selective immigration, forced sterlization and other eugenic policies, and gave credence to the Nazi ideology. I don’t think science has a record to be proud of when it comes to ethical issues. Using bits of baby in research may well come to rank with the Tuskegee medical experiments–letting black men die of syphilis without treatment just to see what happens.

  9. robroy says:

    This comes at a time where stem cells are being harvested from amniotic fluid, and more recently still able to be taken from de-differentiated skin cells. How successful in-human trials for adult stem cells? Hundreds. How many for embryonic? None. Michael J. Fox would be a fool to have embryonic stem cells implanted in his brainstem.

    I have suggested that Colorado (my state) form a center for adult and amniotic (somatic) stem cell research. The money would come flowing in. Why? Because somatic stem cells are already delivering. Embryonic stem cells have problems other than ethical concerns.

  10. libraryjim says:

    The most recent successes in treating diabetes comes from the use of stem cells from the subjects OWN BLOOD CELLS. Yet we hear not a peep on the news or from Congress on this.

  11. Dave B says:

    #8, Harry, thank you, I wasn’t clear on your position!

  12. James Manley says:

    the bill expanding embryonic stem cell research

    No, the bill _funding_ embryopnic stem cell research. It can expand all it wants to; the research isn’t illegal. It just can’t get private funding because so far it has revealed no promise of success.

    The private mooney is going into neural stem cells, where the oriven potential is.

  13. libraryjim says:

    My assertion is that most Americans don’t support “EMBRYONIC” stem cell research. I wonder if most polls differentiate between the types to get their data?

  14. libraryjim says:

    Matt,
    oh, yes, I remember now. No way am I going to debate ANYTHING with you, since you have everything nicely figured out.

    As the old saying goes, I’d sooner try to teach a pig to sing. At least one of us would be entertained then.

    Have a nice day.

  15. libraryjim says:

    Blast, I meant to type “discuss” not “debate”. Oh, well, the perils of internet typing — fun! 😉

  16. drjoan says:

    What makes the congress believe that it is incumbent on the American public to FUND embryonic stem cell research? Why can’t private moneys be used?
    As someone said above, the President didn’t forbid the research, just the FUNDING of it by American taxpayers.
    Thank God for a President who chooses life!

  17. Harry Edmon says:

    I can believe, given the information (or lack thereof) in the media, that a majority supports embryonic stem cell research. And frankly, I don’t care – wrong is wrong and is not subject to a majority vote!

  18. Barrdu says:

    Oh, yes! Let’s get the government to regulate the morals of the country! Jeez!

  19. libraryjim says:

    Matt,
    I called you no names. I just stated that your ‘disscussion’ style is unsuited for logical debate. As to name calling, well, you practice enough of that when presented with information and studies by reputed scientists/scholars/researchers with whom you disagree. For example, claiming the American public is too stupid to know the difference between types of stem cell research. (Jim, let’s assume that the American people are smart enough to know the difference. )
    Nope, not worth the bandwidth to engage you in discussion.
    Now, if there were an ‘ignore’ button’ here, I’d use it, however, consider yourself on my ignore list from now on. 😉

  20. The_Elves says:

    Time to end this little back and forth, fellas. -Elf Lady