Stem cell research

S

Sydia

TNPer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5197372.stm

Bush has used his first veto (in 6 years?!) to block a bill supporting government funding for embryonic stem cell research.

I thought it would be very interesting to hear the American take on this - whether Bush was right to veto the bill, and consequently debate the ethics of stem cell research.

In the UK, (cite at least (and the US too, forgive the lack of cite), the stem cells used for research come from surplus IVF treatments, i.e. they are the embryos which have been created using IVF but not used due the the small number of cells and unlikelyhood (or impossibility) of the embryo ever becoming a baby. These frozen embryos are destroyed (five years in the UK) after the couple undergoing IVF has a baby.

The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4562235.stm):
Theoretically, it should be possible to use stem cells to generate healthy tissue to replace that either damaged by trauma, or compromised by disease.

Among the conditions which scientists believe may eventually be treated by stem cell therapy are Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, stroke, arthritis, diabetes, burns and spinal cord damage.
Click to expand...
Is the veto holding back American medical progress? Or was it right for Bush to make a stand on ethical grounds?

Bush (quoted from the BBC link at the top):
"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect," the president said.

"Each of these children was adopted while still an embryo and has been blessed with a chance to grow, to grow up in a loving family. These boys and girls are not spare parts."
Click to expand...

So; valuable research to cure diseases or man playing God and mucking about with the sanctity of life? Your opinions, please.
 
I think Bush finally did something right.

Side note: If it is impossible for the stem cell to support life, sure, go ahead.
 
Could somebody please explain what clause in the Constitution gives the government authority to fund any sort of scientific research? I am opposed to government funding of any and all scientific research.

The moral reasons for singling out stem-cell research are silly, however. Bush got it right for the wrong reasons.
 
As a scientist, I think that it's silly and will hamper US biomedical research. As a humanist, I think that stem cell research would result in a net positive boon to society. As a cynic, I think that our "decent society" should strive to protect and improve life for people for the entire duration of life instead of just at its inception.
 
As a cynic, I think that our "decent society" should strive to protect and improve life for people for the entire duration of life instead of just at its inception.
Click to expand...

As a rationalist, I think old people should be executed and their bodies should be used as fuel. They'll be more productive that way. Cheers to alzheimer's.
 
John Ashcroft Land:
Could somebody please explain what clause in the Constitution gives the government authority to fund any sort of scientific research?  I am opposed to government funding of any and all scientific research. 

The moral reasons for singling out stem-cell research are silly, however.  Bush got it right for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...
Article 1:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...
Click to expand...
I'll start out with a more pertinent argument, that science both provides for a more effective defense force (an idea which became widespread in the 19th century) and scientific advances have been improving the quality of life of citizens (this one was known to the framers of the constitution, which included a number of scientists). Funding scienctific research inherently makes the state stronger, more capable and more efficient, and this clause gives Congress the right to tax us to do it.

When it comes to embryonic stem cells, I think that if the Religious Right was sufficiently concerned about these innocent children stuck in the deep freeze, there would be people clamoring to bring these children to term.

The problem I have with the idea that life begins/ ensoulment occurs at conception is that we see that between 30 and 60% of fertilized eggs don't implant, and 25% of those which do implant are miscarried. wikipedia A worldview which believes that that many souls don't even get out of the gate is absurd.
 
John Ashcroft Land:
Could somebody please explain what clause in the Constitution gives the government authority to fund any sort of scientific research? I am opposed to government funding of any and all scientific research.

The moral reasons for singling out stem-cell research are silly, however. Bush got it right for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...
It's mostly the clause that says Congress has the power to promote the Sciences and Useful Arts, along with the necessary and proper clause, and the appropriations power of Congress.

Grante,d the science clause is about patents, and the necessary and proper clause is disliked, but so long as Congress makes appropriations via bills, it can fund whatever the hell it wants. Literally.
 
IMO Congress does not have the right to appropriate money wherever it chooses. The General Welfare clause, in my opinion, is explained in further detail later in Section 8, and the funding of scientific research is not mentioned. Funding military research could be deamed "necessary and proper" for the ability to keep a strong Army and Navy, but stem cell research is irrelivent IMO. Of course, I do admit that the Constitution is vague on this issue. It had to be to be ratified.
 
Saying the government does not have the right or authority to fund scientific research is, in my mind, somewhat ludicrous.

The "necessary and proper" clause in the Constitution has been stretched to include a lot of things, and some of those things are way less necessary and proper than scientific research. The Constitution doesn't mention freeways either, and yet Congress had the power to authorize the creation of a vast interstate freeway network. If one is using the strict definition of necessary and proper, interestate highways don't fall under this category -- freeways aren't the only roads available, after all.

I agree with MO -- let's not forget research produces medicines. Creation of drugs doesn't happen out of a clear blue sky.

Furthermore, as I've mentioned before, there is a distinct problem PRACTICALLY to not funding scientific research. There's no mistaking the fact that research, especialyl biomedical research, is expensive. That's just a natural consequence from the fact that biology is hard to predict -- in fact, only 1 in 10 bioscience experiments typically go the way the experimenter hypothesizes. Of course, even "failures" give you information, but a naturally low "success' rate means it's more costly. Furthermore, reagents used in bioscience are not cheap -- there are many things where one small vial costs $100 or more. Without government funding to offset these things, how would labs survive? There aren't that many philanthropists or private organizations with such deep pockets to rely solely on non-governmental funding.

Lack of all governmental funding would mean that practically no new drugs would be created inthe US. That also has practical implications -- if other companies control the drug, they control the patent, which means they control distribution. Of course, there would also be a huge "brain drain" as talented people simply head overseas to do work.


To address the original point, it doesn't matter whether the veto proves Bush is anti-science, as some have claimed. All that matters is that, in the eyes of the public, the administration is seen as increasingly anti-science (especially when 60-70% of those polled in the US approve of stem cell research). Of course, in politics, truth is only what you can get people to believe. I think it's somewhat odd especially given the fact that these embryos are ones that are "extra" ones created during fertility treatments. I don't see religious conservatives clamoring that IVF should be restricted because they create extra embryos that could be discarded (if they were consistent in their position, they would claim that). From another point of view, the government is butting in -- if a couple sign a form that authorizes these "extra" embryos to be donated to stem cell research, that should be the end of it. I remember a time not so long ago when conservatives were actually against big government.. The impetus behind this veto seems to be the kind of governmental expansion -- into the very private decision of whether one wants to keep generated embryos -- that conservatives so frequently maligned in the 70's and 80's.
 
When the Democrats had the presidency, they wanted a big government and the republicans wanted a smaller one. Now that the republicans have it, they want a bigger government and the democrats want a smaller one.

Both are corrupt. Both only want the government to be big when they are in control of it.


Greed is the motivator, not political ideal.
 
Indeed it is.

Although I seem to be a little late on the discussion, the veto was stupid. Stem Cell Research can save lives. Besides the moral reasons are non existant. Bush says he does not want it done beacuse it would kill the embryos, but apparently he has not read the study that states that over 90% of the embryos that are not used for research are just thrown away. If you are just going to throw them away, you may as well use them to perhaps save someone's life.
 
Fedele:
As a rationalist, I think old people should be executed and their bodies should be used as fuel. They'll be more productive that way. Cheers to alzheimer's.
Click to expand...
All this time, I had the feeling there was something about the way you think that made me terminally unable to agree with you on any matter of ethics whatsoever. I think you just cleared it up for me. :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top