OPINION & EDITORIAL
Kerry, scientists play God
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mark A. Baumgardner:
- Wisconsin election ripe with voter irregularities (January 24, 2005)
- As absurd as March snow (December 1, 2004)
- Good morning, Milwaukee (November 17, 2004)
- ASM resolution wasteful (November 10, 2004)
- Re-elect George Bush to the presidency (October 27, 2004)
Related Stories:
- Cures not simple (October 14, 2004)
- Amended bill to hurt stem-cell research (April 22, 2005)
- Straight to the bank (October 4, 2005)
- California Dreamin' (November 11, 2004)
- Stem-cell research should receive funding (August 8, 2006)
by Mark A. Baumgardner
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Senator John Kerry personally struggled with at least two questions directed to him in Friday's town-hall presidential debate, including this one: "Senator Kerry, thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?"
This question opened a short discussion on a complicated issue very much relevant not only in the presidential race, but also in the state and local races here in Madison and Wisconsin.
In the debate, Kerry deviated from his usual script on the subject that he has used at the Democratic National Convention and other recent campaign events in front of friendly crowds. Last week, he stated that President George W. Bush restricts stem-cell research because of "extreme right-wing ideology," and in his acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention, Kerry implied that we need a president who "believes in science."
Kerry makes these claims, ignoring the fact that no such restrictions exist on stem-cell research in the private sector, embryonic or otherwise, and that state and local governments can fund it. In fact, Bush became the first president ever to grant federal funding to embryonic stem-cell research, but in opening that door, he limited that research to already destroyed human embryos and certainly did not give his blessing on further destruction of human life.
Incidentally, this discussion also raises an interesting point of contrast between research in other sectors of science and technology. When corporations want funding for promising development, they often sell bonds and stock to cover costs, convincing investors of booming business to come. If investors truly believed in the hypothetically promising future of embryonic stem-cell research, one has to wonder why that sector relies so heavily on government funding, rather than exclusively on traditional private investment.
Perhaps because his harsh rhetoric would not have sold as well in front of a mixed national audience, Kerry changed his tone in the debate, even claiming that he respected "the feeling" in the question. For his part, Bush did an excellent job explaining the need to balance science and ethics. However, President Bush missed an opportunity to more thoroughly examine Kerry's senate record on stem-cell research and the related issue of human cloning — an examination that would expose Kerry as a true extremist on the issue.
In one of his rare appearances in the Senate this past July, Kerry co-sponsored a bill that would allow the creation of embryos by human cloning for research so long as they are destroyed after 14 days. According to a poll conducted by Wilson Research Strategies, Americans overwhelmingly (69 percent) support banning human cloning completely and few (24 percent) would support it even if only for research purposes.
On this issue, the Kerry campaign and others have followed a strategy often used by liberals to win support for bad ideas: change the language. We now hear the terms "therapeutic cloning" and "reproductive cloning." In both cases, scientists play God to create human life genetically identical to another person, but politicians create the false impression that "therapeutic cloning" for a research purpose is somehow different than human cloning for reproductive purposes. Reproductive cloning, at least, does not necessarily destroy human life in the process.
Even President Bill Clinton, often known for careful wording, did not distort that language, rejecting in 1994 a National Institutes of Health proposal to fund embryo creation solely for research. In 1998, he called for a ban on human cloning in his State of the Union address.
Perhaps Kerry's unwillingness to act on any ethical concerns regarding embryonic stem relates to his extreme positions on other pro-life issues. He voted against banning partial-birth abortion six times, claiming to want an exception for the health of mother, despite the fact that the American Medical Association stated that this violent procedure was never medically necessary. Kerry even voted against legislation recognizing as victims unborn children killed or injured in violent federal crimes.
In the case of embryonic stem-cell research, moral and ethical problems far outweigh any potential benefits, especially when good alternatives exist.
Mark Baumgardner (mbaumgardner@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in electrical engineering.
Anonymous (October 13, 2004 @ 7:51am):
Thanks, Mark, for an insightful article on a sensitive, important issue. Also, you're hot looking.
Anonymous (October 13, 2004 @ 8:38am):
Nothing like agreeing with someone because you think they are hot.
Spin away, Mark. You know darn well where Bush sits on this. I'm not even going to waste my time citing the many faults in your stance. At the UW, where stem cell research is on the cutting edge, students know better. You should be ashamed for this partisan spin which only serves to hamper your own university. You aren't going to change any minds around here.
Anonymous (October 13, 2004 @ 8:39am):
"...no such restrictions exist on stem-cell research in the private sector, embryonic or otherwise, and that state and local governments can fund it."
With what money? After the Bush tax cut, federal money spent on states and municipalities was significantly reduced. Most states and thousands of local areas have had to increase taxes just to keep up, and many of them have still had to cut services. So how are they supposed to fund research on top of keeping schools and hospitals open, providing police and fire services, collecting the trash, etc.
"If investors truly believed in the hypothetically promising future of embryonic stem-cell research, one has to wonder why that sector relies so heavily on government funding, rather than exclusively on traditional private investment."
Because medical research hasn't relied "exclusively on traditional private investment." Medical research is prohibitively expensive to the extent that in many cases, only the government can afford to pay for it. With the kind of logic presented in this article, we'd still be looking for a cure for polio.
"In the case of embryonic stem-cell research, moral and ethical problems far outweigh any potential benefits, especially when good alternatives exist."
How do you know? Are you a prescient scientist, capable of determining the potential benefits of a line of research even before embarking on the research process? When Kerry says we need a president who believes in science, this is what he's talking about. Under Bush, over a hundred researchers have been blackballed -- they are now officially ineligible for federal funding for any research of any kind -- because their research topics were branded morally unacceptable. Included in this group of researchers are a number of people who study prevention of STD transmission and teenage pregnancy through sex education. RESEARCH shows that students will have sex despite the Bush administration's head-in-the-sand, "just say no," abstinence only approach to sex education. Since they're going to have sex anyway, might it make sense to educate them about safe practices to reduce risks? RESEARCH shows that when students are exposed to real sex education, they are much more likely to take precautions that ultimately can save their lives.
It's ironic, isn't it? The Bush administration, which likes to present itself as always favoring positions that maintain the sanctity of human life, is opposed to this kind of research, which can preserve human life. John Kerry, who Mark and reductionist Republicans like him love to present as against positions that maintain the sanctity of human life, here is in favor of the position opposed by Republicans that preserves human life. It's not so simple as you present it to be, Mark.
Intelligent Americans appreciate nuance like this. Morons merely accept Bushisms.
Anonymous (October 13, 2004 @ 9:42am):
Hey, people, say whatever you want about Mark's article, but he's still hot looking! That you cannot possibly deny!
Anonymous (October 13, 2004 @ 9:59am):
If state and local governments truly see embryonic stem cell research as vital and necessary to solving medicine's mysteries, then perhaps cutting other social welfare programs should be on their to-do list in order to free up funds for the research.
Also - back in the Democratic "Golden Years," Clinton never allocated a single dollar to this type of research...and it floors me that Democrats would now chastise Bush for being the first President in history to allocate any federal funds to stem cell research.
Anonymous (October 13, 2004 @ 10:24am):
I will not chastise Bush for being the first President in history to allocate federal funds to stem cell research, but I will blame Clinton for not funding it. I will also blame Abraham Lincoln for not funding stem cell research, because it is probably just as plausible as Clinton.
Anonymous (October 13, 2004 @ 10:32am):
Well, it seems apparent that Bush is using the specious arguments of the Christian right to secure votes. The debate over stem cell research has little to do with the sanctity of human life, and a lot more to do with dividing this country on moral grounds. It was always be advantageous for politician to create issues that can make the country more polarized while diverting attention from the real issues affecting our society. I see steam cell research as yet one more example of that. People who actually could be affected by the overwhelming promise in stem cell research back it despite political ideology. It only becomes an issue when dealing with dramatized by the church in order to influence their congregation. Furthermore it would not be lucrative for the drug companies to take up stem cell research because cures for many of these diseases would cause them to lose business. If people are no longer sick they can no longer sell them medicine. And maybe Bush (and Clinton) need just a little chastising.
Anonymous (October 13, 2004 @ 10:44am):
"In the case of embryonic stem-cell research, moral and ethical problems far outweigh any potential benefits, especially when good alternatives exist."
Yet your article never discusses any of these. What are the moral or ethical problem?
The frozen embryos from fertility clinics will either be used for research or flushed down the drain. Either way life is destroyed. No one is taking embryos that will actually go into a woman's uterus and using them for stem cell research. So why not at least try to help people with these cells?
Also the lines of stem cells they are using and are already funded are contaminated lines due to the research done with mice. Ask people who work with the lines or do anything with medical research and they will tell you that.
And what are the good alternatives?
Adult stem cell research, or as most people call it bone marrow transplants, will not ever be able to cure parkinsons or diabetes or anything else embryonic stem cell research may. The cells do not work the same way.
But hey you can just keep on adhering to the same old ignorant rhetoric that holds embryonic stem cell research on level with abortion. It is not as cut and dry as you want it to be.
Anonymous (October 13, 2004 @ 1:22pm):
"The frozen embryos from fertility clinics will either be used for research or flushed down the drain. Either way life is destroyed."
This is not always true. Some frozen embryos are adopted, implanted, carried to term, and born. http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakes_description.asp
Second, even if frozen embryos will be discarded, the option of donating a human embryo to science raises a number of ethical concerns: Can nascent human life be used in medical research in a manner which destroys that life? Can parents responsible for terminating the life give consent for this process? If a prisoner on death row, after appeals are exhausted, is destined for the chair (or equivalent), is it morally acceptable to destroy that person for the purpose of research? Should we require humans to be "dead" before their body parts are harvested for transplantation, or is this an archaic moral position? Since Tuskegee and the German experiments, we have generally rejected a utilitarian calculus when the life of a person is taken for research purposes that might hold benefits to many; is it time to revist our rejection of utilitarianism?
These are serious questions--and I don't pose them because I know their answer, I pose them because they are the kinds of moral questions that shed light into the appropriateness of terminating a living embryo for the purpose of medical research.
Third, there is a reasonable fear among those opposed to embryo research (and IVF generally) that the option of donating a discarded embryo to science will have the effect of creating embryos for destruction. If a couple is considering IVF, they have the option to make one or multiple embryos for implantation. The more embryos created, the higher the likelihood that the doctor will not have to harvest eggs a second time--an expensive and invasive procedure. Some parents might opt to create additional embryos knowing that there is a market (for donation) of these embryos to science that might not have otherwise created these embryos. They are comforted by the knowledge that a sink is not the embryo's end; and that there might be some benefit to their creation (thus rationalizing the decision to create life for destruction). This is a concern is in the fetal tissue research area as well. In sum, it is likely that some embryos (perhaps not many) are created in light of a superstructure of vibrant embryo research. The line between what has been created for research and what is "excess" is very blurry as a matter of causation; and does not exist at all as a matter of biology.
Anonymous (October 13, 2004 @ 4:39pm):
Thanks for the lousy piece Mark. What alarms me most is not your poor recitation of "facts" but that you label Kerry an "extremist" in the same article that you whine that liberals change the language to win support for bad ideas. What you are talking about is framing. You frame Kerry as an extremist in an effort to win support for your bad point of view. If you knew anything about framing, which is doubtful since you are an engineering student, you would know that CONSERVATIVES have expertly used framing to help shift the discussions in this country ever since "pro-lifers" started calling pro-choice people "anti-lifers". Here are some other bad ideas, cleverly and cynically framed by the right. Please review and please, for the love of Madison, take a political science course and absorb something man.
"Healthy Forests"
"Clear Skies"
"Death Tax"
"Privatization"
"Small Business"
"Entrepreneurs"
"Patriot Act"
"Compassionate Conservative"
Anonymous (October 13, 2004 @ 4:46pm):
Kerry's been rated as the most liberal Senator in the Congress...this leads me to believe the extremist moniker fits for Kerry.
Anonymous (October 13, 2004 @ 6:03pm):
I am the Lord John Kerry. I say that rather flushing pre-embryonic cells down the toilet following in vitro fertilization, or letting the millions of cells sitting in the freezers simply go to waste (which they will), that we should use them to allow sick people the things they need to fight for their lives. Even the womb wastes these cells. Lets beat the womb to it. Bow before me.
Anonymous (October 13, 2004 @ 7:24pm):
Look people, you can argue for or against stem cell research. While the issue may be a devisive one, we must not ignore one simple and obvious fact: Mark Baumgardner is still hot looking! God help you all if you have a hard time facing up to it!
Anonymous (October 13, 2004 @ 9:53pm):
It surprises me that a UW-Madison student article about stem cell research, whether the author supports it or not, does not reference the fact that the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation holds the patent covering embryonic stem cell technology. In fact, the first five stem cell lines were isolated by a team of UW researchers. This is an issue that affects the state of Wisconsin and the univesity directly. Some of the world's experts on stem cell research are right here on campus, doing amazing work that could result in cures for diseases that were once thought to be lost causes. Diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimers, and diabetes. And the reason embroynic stem cells must be used is because of their unique ability morph into any of the other types of cells found in the body - something that stem cells taken from umbilical cords or elsewhere cannot do. But don't just take my word for it. Visit http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/ and read about the UW's research for yourself.
Anonymous (October 14, 2004 @ 4:46pm):
Actaully, adult stem cells also display a remarkable range of plasticity. For example, last month an article was published indicating that umbilical cord cells can be coaxed into forming muscle cells. (See abstract here: http://stemcells.alphamedpress.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/4/617).
For a decent catalog of adult stem cell literature through last summer, see this piece: http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/prentice.htm.
Admittedly, Dr. Prentice is against embryonic stem cell research, but consult the text vs. the articles cited--he's not playing fast and loose with the state of adult stem cells in research and therapeutic application. And that was a year ago.
It appears that adult stem cells really do have a greater likelihood of actual therapeutic application, particularly given the immuno-rejection problems that embryonic stem cells pose (and the need to clone to get around that issue).
