Stem cell debate has put on a whole new face as voters are being asked to weigh job creation and potential life-saving cures against moral concerns over the destruction of human embryos in an impassioned battle over a Missouri ballot measure supporting the science. According to political analysts, the outcome of the initiative in Missouri could influence future federal and state efforts to either block or support the science. Embryonic stem cell research has gotten caught up in a tight U.S. Senate race between State Auditor Claire McCaskill (D) and incumbent Sen. Jim Talent (R), a race so tight that McCaskill has made support for embryonic stem cell research a keystone of her campaign.
Whereas Missouri is the only state with the question on the Nov. 7 ballot, the controversy over embryonic stem cell research is playing prominently in the Wisconsin governor's race and cropping up in state races scattered across the country. What is more, a few Republican gubernatorial candidates are breaking ranks with the Bush administration by running on their support for the controversial research topic. In a close state race, Wisconsin Gov. Jum Doyle (D) is using his support of embryonic stem cell research to differentiate himself from conservative challenger U.S. Rep. Mark Green (R), who opposes using human embryos for the research. Political analysts agree that Doyle's persistent, albeit unsuccessful, calls for the state Legislature to commit funds to the science give him an edge in the governor's race.
In the state of Michigan, Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is waging a tough re-election bid against anti-abortion Republican Dick DeVos, who has blasted her efforts to overturn laws in the state that restrict the science. " While President Bush is building up walls in Washington to block this life-saving research, we have the opportunity to tear them down in Michigan," says Granholm in a written appeal to Michiganders to sigh a petition asking state lawmakers to repeal anti-stem cell research laws. She has argued that removing restrictions on the science would reduce health care costs and allow the state's emerging life-sciences industry to flourish.
As things are turning out, the Midwest is not the only political stage where science is colliding with religion over stem cell research. On both coasts, Republican governors up for re-election in November are touting their record of supporting the science for its medical potential and economic opportunities in a clear break with Bush admininistration policies that limit the research.
In Massachusetts, home to stem-cell leader Harvard University, both candidates for the open governor's seat have come out in support of the science. In the South, Georgia and Kentucky stem cell advocates already are taking steps to get the issue on the ballot in 2008. A statewide poll of Georgia voters found 63 percent approval for "research on stem cells taken from donated embryos from fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded."
In Massachusetts, home to stem-cell leader Harvard University, both candidates for the open governor's seat have come out in support of the science. In the South, Georgia and Kentucky stem cell advocates already are taking steps to get the issue on the ballot in 2008. A statewide poll of Georgia voters found 63 percent approval for "research on stem cells taken from donated embryos from fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded."
In July, right before President Bush vetoed a bill that would have lifted his 2001 restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, Democratic governors from Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin urged Congress to push for stem cell funding. Some of those same governors continue to publicize their support for the research in their re-election bids..
Interestingly, sixty-eight percent of Americans approve of embryonic stem cell research, according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Supporters include high-profile Republicans, such as Nancy Reagan, with loved ones who have suffered from debilitating diseases for which the research offers hopes of a cure.
Six states have ensured the legality of the science and committed state money to fill the gap left by the federal government's funding restrictions. So far, California has committed $3 billion for the research; Connecticut has committed $20 million; Illinois, $15 million; New Jersey, $5.5 million; Maryland, $15 million; and Massachusetts, 15 million.
Six states have ensured the legality of the science and committed state money to fill the gap left by the federal government's funding restrictions. So far, California has committed $3 billion for the research; Connecticut has committed $20 million; Illinois, $15 million; New Jersey, $5.5 million; Maryland, $15 million; and Massachusetts, 15 million.
While researching this topic, I had an opportunity to examine things from different view points. One such viewpoint that stand out for me is that of David Moyes of the Scottish Council on Bioethics. Moyes tries to sell us the following argument: we can't determine for certain what the moral status of an embryo is. That we as a society ought not to disregard the section of the population that ascribes infinite value to embryos and comes out against any destructive embryo stem-cell extraction and research.
The Cathilic Church, Mr Moyes and the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics are welcome to differ. Considering that he represents the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, his choice of words is rather charged. It is misleadinig in the extreme to call embryos persons, as most embryos, even those naturally conceived, never result in babies due to the high natural rate of embryo failure. Infact stem cells are extracted around 14 days after conception. Crucially for the question of moral status: the embryos in question have no central nervous system, no brain, no capacity to suffer, they consists of a few hundred cells.
And there might still be people who think such cell accumulations ought to be called persons and they ought to be treated like you and me, but the fact of the matter is, there are not many such people as the result of the polls are now indicating. Most of us realised that these cell accumulations lack any of the dispositions that we normally accept to be necessary conditions for ascribing personhood to something.
Furthermore, as is typical of those who seek to "protect" embryos, he offers no suggestion as to what ought to be done with embryos if they were "saved" from research. It is almost certain that nothing would ever happen to them and they would remain frozen or be discarded. This would benefit the embryos in no way whatsoever, and would deny real people powerful medical treatments that Mr Moyes admits might be provided by stem cell research.
The Cathilic Church, Mr Moyes and the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics are welcome to differ. Considering that he represents the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, his choice of words is rather charged. It is misleadinig in the extreme to call embryos persons, as most embryos, even those naturally conceived, never result in babies due to the high natural rate of embryo failure. Infact stem cells are extracted around 14 days after conception. Crucially for the question of moral status: the embryos in question have no central nervous system, no brain, no capacity to suffer, they consists of a few hundred cells.
And there might still be people who think such cell accumulations ought to be called persons and they ought to be treated like you and me, but the fact of the matter is, there are not many such people as the result of the polls are now indicating. Most of us realised that these cell accumulations lack any of the dispositions that we normally accept to be necessary conditions for ascribing personhood to something.
Furthermore, as is typical of those who seek to "protect" embryos, he offers no suggestion as to what ought to be done with embryos if they were "saved" from research. It is almost certain that nothing would ever happen to them and they would remain frozen or be discarded. This would benefit the embryos in no way whatsoever, and would deny real people powerful medical treatments that Mr Moyes admits might be provided by stem cell research.
Those who seek to protect embryos would do well to give some thought to what would actually happen if they got what they wanted. I stand corrected, but in my humble opinion, we will do well to promote the stem cell research.
No comments:
Post a Comment