View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by David N. Bass |
January 18th, 2007
Those who subscribe to the pro-abortion ideology have very little wiggle-room when it comes to the value of an embryo.
News earlier this week that researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard Medical School have uncovered a new non-controversial stem cell treatment did nothing to stem the tide of pro-embryonic stem cell madness that swept Congress last Thursday.
In a vote that still fell well short of the two-thirds majority required to overcome a presidential veto, the U.S. House passed H.R. 3 by a 253 to 174 margin on Jan. 11. The bill would lift restrictions established by President Bush in 2001 that prevent federal dollars from being used for additional research involving the destruction of human embryos.
Completely side-stepping the morality of annihilating human life in the name of curing disease, Congresswoman Diana Degette (D–CO), the bill’s primary sponsor, expressed elation in a prepared statement after the legislation passed.
“This is a victory for ethical science as well as true bipartisanship,” she said. “Most importantly, it is a victory for the 100 million Americans and their families who suffer from diseases like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and diabetes.”
Such rhetoric is nothing new from Washington politicians. The troubling reality is that even scientists currently experimenting with embryonic stem cells admit that cures are years and perhaps decades away from coming to fruition. Yet that hasn’t halted the rhetorical firestorm from Washington.
As is so often the case, John Edwards eloquently displayed this in 2004 by suggesting that a vote for John Kerry was a vote for helping Christopher Reeve out of his wheelchair.
What’s the next promise – embryonic stem cells will cause humans to walk on water and raise the dead?
For all their talk about cures, though, the nagging question is why Democrats and liberal-minded Republicans in Congress habitually extol the miraculous benefits of embryonic stem cells while downplaying the myriad ethical alternatives. The rhetoric is even more hypocritical in light of the fact that non-embryonic stem cell research is already revealing the kinds of treatments Edwards is looking for, but without the dubious ethical implications.
Yet another example arose earlier this week at Wake Forest’s Institute for Regenerative Medicine (IRM) in Winston-Salem, N.C. Dr. Anthony Atala and his research team were able to extract stem cells from the amniotic fluid that surrounds the developing fetus in pregnant women.
The amniotic fluid-derived stem cells are believed to closely resemble those found in human embryos. In fact, the stem cells have already been used to create “muscle, bone, fat, blood vessel, nerve and liver cells in the laboratory,” according to an IRM press release.
So, with the IRM research, not to mention the other treatments developed from adult stem cells, why does Congress have an apparent obsession with destructive embryonic stem cell research?
I can tell you in one word: abortion.
Those who subscribe to the pro-abortion ideology have very little wiggle-room when it comes to the value of an embryo. After all, what makes medical experimentation on human embryos immoral if life begins at some unspecified date after conception or birth? In that case, embryos are merely “products of conception” wholly lacking any human worth, right?
This is the chief reason embryonic stem cell research is being pushed so feverishly, even in the face of non-controversial alternatives. To admit even the slightest possibility that an embryo might have human worth would be to violate the sacrosanct pro-abortion philosophy. Why else would abortion advocacy organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America so strongly support embryonic stem cell research? Stem cells seemingly have nothing to do with abortion, birth control, or “sexual liberation,” so why the big fuss?
The answer is simple: for all their rhetoric about choice, abortion advocates have only one option on the stem cell issue. Anything less than no-holds-barred embryo research would violate their ideology – they can’t afford not to support it.
It’s a sad cultural commentary when any nation sanctions abuse and manipulation of the weak in order to improve the livelihood of the strong, especially in the name of political philosophy. Throughout history, evil is almost always tied to a socially desirable idea that gives it a tolerable face, and embryonic stem cell research is no different.
The question for the American people is whether we will settle for evil cloaked around a “good idea” or uphold one of the highest ideals known to man – the sacredness of every human life.
david.n.bass@gmail.com
Visit their website at: http://www.matthewbass.com/thepundit/
Responses to "Embryonic Stem Cell Research is About Ideology, Not Cures"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It’s tempting and somewhat logical to see ideology issues behind the embryonic stem cell fight, but I think the controversy has always been about the money. The public doesn’t realize that embryonic stem cell research is big business; millions of tax dollars are dispensed each year to support this research. Media misdirection perpetuates the myth that all taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell research is illegal. In 2006 for example, the National Institutes of Health disbursed $25 million toward embryonic stem cell research and a casual review of their research grant database will confirm that fact. California voters have decided to fund stem cell research with 3 billion dollars, and a substantial portion of this money will flow toward embryonic stem cell research. Since 2002, millions of federal tax dollars flow annually into this research from various government agencies and research grant redirection agencies like the National Academy of Sciences.
It’s also tempting to cast the controversy as strictly ideological to avoid discussing the scientific problems; a subject generally considered too technical for widespread public consumption and rather dull besides. However, developing therapeutic cures with embryonic stem cells is an incredibly complex and potentially unsolvable scientific problem. Eventually, we may see tens of billions in tax dollars spent before any results are achieved and there’s a strong possibility therapeutic cures will never be achieved.
However, funding stem cell research has a seldom discussed potential for financial returns in areas other than developing therapeutic cures and it’s necessary to consider this motivation. One area is patenting new biological techniques developed at taxpayer expense; a scientist can become very rich from bio-tech innovations. Another area is correcting embryological problems based on results of the research without a realistic potential for successful therapeutic cures in adults. In essence, the idea is to make exaggerated claims for miracle cures to obtain and sustain the funding stream at any cost. When the promised cures fail to materialize on schedule, the public’s attention must be shifted by assigning blame to some area other than scientists (for example, the religious right) - or the miracle cure hope revitalized by announcing a new direction in research that looks more promising – stem cells from amniotic fluid for example. Keeping the funding circus rolling in spite of setbacks is the goal, but it’s also hard work and the scientific establishment has turned to politicians for help. In California, the underlying political motivation was to attract bio-tech industries to the state through government funding, although the miraculous cure promise was offered to convince the voters.
The ethics of scientists are vastly overrated; financial self-interest and cultural prestige are the primary driving forces in the scientific community. Research labs, salaries, staff, supplies, training, etc. consume vast sums and a scientist can enjoy a well compensated career without producing anything useful for their sponsoring donors. Ironically, President Bush can appreciate the problems of scientists and miracle cures. After 9/11, Bush explained that the war on terror might last decades and would require patience and public fortitude to win. We can see how that turned out; it’s 5 years after 9/11 with no further attacks and the public is bored with the war on terror and wants the troops brought home. Scientists know the public has a short attention span and even less patience with failure, so the ethical and “honest” approach which predicts decades of needed research with a strong possibility of failure won’t secure the billions needed from an impatient public that wants cures now.
If you believe the aforementioned is unduly pessimistic, consider the goal and the steps leading to the goal involving embryonic stem cell research. The goal is therapeutic cures for adults or children outside the womb. A therapeutic use must cure or alleviate the problem in a safe and effective manner – the cure can’t be worse than the disease. The big stumbling block is our own immune system and rejection of the stem cells.
However, there are a number of ancillary problems that must also be overcome. These problems relate primarily to quality control in the intended stem cell lines. Once inserted, stem cells spread throughout the body and can’t be surgically removed. Stem cells create teratomas at the injection site; basically benign, but robust, tumors that contain pieces of teeth, hair and other undeveloped body parts. In fact, a test of whether an effective stem cell line has been developed is the formation of teratomas in adult mice. Although benign, these tumors can be fatal due to their rapid growth. Research also indicates that tissue formed from stem cells has a much shorter life span than normal adult cells (except for blood cells).
It turns out human embryos are much more fragile than animal embryos and correspondingly more difficult to clone. Genetic abnormalities frequently appear in cloned embryos which makes quality control impossible. Scientists can’t develop an effective test to screen for all genetic abnormalities in cloned embryos which means the stem cell lines and corresponding tissue developed from these lines is experimental with every cloning. For patients, this means that rather than receiving a safe and effective therapy, you become a science experiment receiving stem cells that can’t be surgically removed and with a risk of tissue development subject to genetic defects.
The list of problems goes on, but the public prefers to focus on the morality of cloning instead. The danger, however, is that scientists prefer taxpayer funding and politicians like to trade money for votes. It’s not hard to foresee a multi-year, multi-billion dollar effort that produces no therapeutic cures, but creates a lot of contented scientists and politicians.
Comment by Pat Skurka | January 19, 2007
As with all issues with liberals, the issue is not the issue; the revolution is the issue. ESCR is just another manifestation of their fascination with death and communism.
Comment by sedonaman | January 19, 2007
Democrats and liberals really don't care about Stem Cell Research. It's just another issue they use to try and portray conservatives and republicans as anti-science and close minded. I agree there is a money angle as well, but more to the point is that because consevatives stand opposed to ESCR on moral grounds, then liberals must of course be for it.
Here in Jersey, Governor John Corzine couldn't wait to sign legislation to fund SCR and allow civil unions for same sex partners proclaiming this a "great moment" for New Jersey, more important than say property tax relief or crime in our urban schools.
Comment by Jerseyboy | January 20, 2007
"What’s the next promise – embryonic stem cells will cause humans to walk on water and raise the dead?" This part of your argument made me very sad. This is a reflection to the opinion you seem to hold on the subject, that it is a blind-sighted and immoral waste of money. You believe that an undeveloped embryo holds more moral value than a thousand people suffering from varying diseases. You are using faith in place of scientific reason and calling it "morality". The undeveloped embryo could easily become one of many different things in the complex process of development and does not hold any potential as a specific human being yet could lead toward relief for an invaluable number of fully established human beings. As for the research at IRM this is a long path to the final result, stem cell research has been widely known for much time yet has been disbanded for so long in the same respect that bizarre and unfounded "medical" practises defeated rational science during the dark ages.
You also argue that the real or significant scientific and public support for stem cell research is due to money and liberal views toward abortion. Rather than focusing your argument on why you view stem cell research negatively you diverged the question in hand and tried to argue that the reasons behind stem cell research support is anything but to preserve life that exists now and is based on selfish liberal gains. If stem cell research created no real cures it would not be in any benefit to scientists or politicians who supported it but would be suicide for their careers if the end outcome was not rational and beneficial. It is true that there is very rarely if not never a pure and true cause supporting anything, there will be those who do not see it as an opportunity for mankind but instead as an opportunity to make money but this is as true for the argument against stem cell research by nearly any politician as it is sure to draw large votes from christian supporters.
Comment by JFletcher | January 21, 2007
"You are using faith in place of scientific reason and calling it “morality”. The undeveloped embryo could easily become one of many different things in the complex process of development and does not hold any potential as a specific human being yet could lead toward relief for an invaluable number of fully established human beings."
"Could", "May", "Might". These are the accomplishments that embryonic stem cell research has yielded. Could's, May's and Might's. Setting aside morality completely, why would we want to exorbitantly fund medical research that has thus far yielded no practical results? Instead of defaulting to the "Dark Ages" defense, why don't you try defending embryonic research on the merits of its results? We all know why: because there aren't any. On the other hand, adult stem cells are already being used to treat and cure hundreds of diseases (including reversing blindness and partial paralysis in lab experiments), yet they receive no media attention, and no praise from the science purists like yourself. How come? Why is it that the only form of stem cell research that you ardently insist must be funded with billions, if not trillions, of taxpayer dollars is the only form of stem cell research not to produce any viable treatments or cures for a single, solitary disease anywhere in the world (and the only one with any moral debate attached to it)? Either you are too stupid to understand the difference between one kind of stem cell research and another, or you've been duped by blindly believing in what Nancy Pelosi has propagandized to you about embryonic stem cells, or you know fully well the facts about embryonic stem cells and you have the ulterior motive mentioned previously in the article. In any case, your "defense of science" argument completely breaks down when you find yourself rabidly supporting a research cause that has proven to be completely ineffective anywhere in the world (including countries that don't have the moral compunctions about destroying embryos that we do in the United States), while you attack people who support research that has been used in treating hundreds of diseases for over a decade. Your post proves the title thesis of this article.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 21, 2007
Dear Mr. Fletcher: Perhaps you could review the current and outstanding results at Wake Forest and Harvard before you repeat and repeat the current mantra supporting embryonic stem cell research. The truly significant and tangible results of working with amniotic stem cells woul certainly seem to trump the zero results with embryonic stem cells.
By the way, I've capitalized your name, perhaps you could capitalize "Christianity".
Mike Brown
Comment by Mike Brown | January 21, 2007
With due respect to sedonaman and Jerseyboy, I don't disagree that political and philosophical issues have major impacts on the embryonic stem cell debate. In fact, the motives of the abortion advocates may be uglier than even the author of this article assumes. To understand why, it's necessary to turn to the scientific issues again. For therapeutic uses, it's not enough to demonstrate that stem cell line such-and-such was developed within the laboratory. What the doctors need to know is whether the proposed stem cell line is safe for the patient being treated or whether tissue developed from the stem cells will contain horrific genetic abnormalities leading to a cure far worse than the disease.
At present, the only way to determine safety is to allow the embryo to develop in a normal fashion and then test for genetic abnormalities. However, the goal isn't to determine if the embryo can develop and will continue toward a normal live birth. Rather, the cloned embryos will require implantation, be allowed to develop to certain points and then aborted for testing. Through such experimentation, it may be possible, but very difficult, to develop an effective testing procedure that screens for genetic abnormalities in cloned embryos. But, there are no artificial surrogate wombs and these experiments must be carried out within human wombs. In effect, female volunteers will become necessary laboratory equipment and the right to abortion must also be sanctioned for scientific experimentation.
The abortion advocates not only urge the politicians to legally sanction embryonic stem cell research, but probably realize that extensive experimentation on live subjects is absolutely necessary to continue this line of research. Whether the public will accept such experimentation is the issue. The attraction of miraculous therapeutic cures may be sufficient to convince the public to allow such experimentation or it may not.
Since the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, repeated challenges to unrestricted abortion under the guise of a "right to privacy" have proven unsuccessful. The Supreme Court and our political leadership has shown considerable reluctance to place any limitations on abortion. Additionally, promising alternatives to embryonic stem cell research such as stem cells from amniotic fluid doesn't necessarily mean that taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell research will cease - in fact, scientists have a lot invested in this research and need the funding to continue. So, the acid test will be whether the public can be moved from a "right to privacy" argument toward a "medical necessity" argument relative to supporting unrestricted scientific experimentation on human embryos.
Comment by Pat Skurka | January 22, 2007