The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

California Dreamin’

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:

A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
$$FC (December 6, 2007)
In a bind (December 5, 2007)
Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)

by Badger Herald Editorial Board

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Almost five years to the day after University of Wisconsin biologist James Thompson reported the first-ever isolation and culturing of human embryonic stem cells, the state of California passed Proposition 71. This ballot measure, endorsed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, ensures $3 billion in state funding for stem-cell research over the next decade. While the Bush administration appears steadfast in limiting federal financing of what some—largely religious conservatives—see as a morally reprehensible practice, Californians have ensured their universities and private research facilities will keep this nation on the forefront of stem-cell exploration.

Since Thompson’s 1998 report, UW and its research facilities have been on the cusp of human embryonic stem-cell research. In 2001, a Wisconsin team of scientists reported the development of methods that could coax human embryonic stem cells into becoming primitive blood cells and later develop into more mature cells such as blood platelets. In 2003, Thompson’s team began using techniques that manipulated stem-cell DNA in order to study gene function. For the better part of five years, UW routinely blazed the scientific frontier and gained international recognition through the efforts of Thompson and his associates.

But with the passage of Proposition 71, UW’s status in the field of stem-cell research has taken a backseat to the state of California. The ballot measure successfully sidesteps Bush’s federal financing restrictions and California’s universities now have the means to attract the best scientists and graduate students in the world.

While we realize the state budget crisis and current political climate have put this university in a major financial quandary, UW cannot afford to fall behind in this ever-important field. Despite its critics, stem-cell research holds the possibility of leading to life-saving treatments from everything from Parkinson’s to diabetes. UW’s research has been monumental in leading toward these discoveries and should not be deterred. Moreover, Wisconsin must remain a leader in the development of a potentially huge industry, which could ultimately create thousands of new jobs and bring millions of dollars into the state through scientific patents.

For this university, a commitment to stem-cell funding is necessary in keeping top-notch faculty and researchers on this campus. With an already depleted and impure line of stem cells, there is little time to sit on this issue. UW’s graduates, post-docs and even longtime faculty members certainly now see the lure of California. It will be awfully tough to compete with $3 billion, but Wisconsin will be doing a great disservice to this university if it chooses to sit idly and watch its brightest minds move west.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Mark Baumgardner (November 11, 2004 @ 7:51am):

First of all, Professor James Thomson does not have a "p" in his last name, but that's about the least of the problems with this editorial.

The fact that the State of California, with all its financial problems, found a way to fund embryonic stem cell research should prove once and for all that there is no ban in place from President Bush's administration.

But there's an even larger problem with this editorial. Destroying human life for the purpose of scientific research is always wrong. One cannot simply dismiss this argument as coming from "religious conservatives" and move on. Of course, there is no such thing as a "non-religious" person- it's just a question of what religion that person worships, and secularism could be considered a religion. Even most, if not all, secularists would agree that human experimentation in Nazi Germany was wrong, even with all the medical benefits that resulted from that. Humans in the early stages of development (embryos) are not any less human. I am not a "fundamentalist Christian", but I do not need to be to recognize that.

The California ballot initiative not only funds embryonic stem cell research, but it also does not allow that same funding to be used for adult stem cells, which have led to many cures, as opposed to embryonic stem cells which have led to none. Secularists have used this issue for ridicule of their opponents, trying to claim that those oppose embryonic stem cell research oppose science. That is not at all the case. Speaking for myself, as long as stem cells come from sources that do not destroy human life (bone marrow, umbilical cords, etc), I am completely in favor of it.

One legal source of funding that no one seems to want to talk about for embryonic stem cell research is private investment. After all, when companies need initial funding to begin developing promising technology that is what they do. One might argue that the government traditionally funds research that could not likely be sold as promising for return on investment to private investors. That may be true, but then you can not argue these "pie in the sky" scenarios where stem cell research will magically cure all diseases.

Embryonic stem cell research deserves the same ethical considerations as any other science. Some of the same people who want the government plunge head-first into funding embryonic stem cell research are the ones who oppose any nuclear power plants because of possible health risks. While I believe most of these claims are not valid, they have a right to raise ethical concerns about science.

When embryonic stem cell research destroys a human life every time, these same ethical concerns should be raised, and "thousands of new jobs" and "millions of dollars" do not outweigh the destruction of human life.

Anonymous (November 11, 2004 @ 8:46am):

Honestly, Badger Herald, do you ever fact check?

Anonymous (November 11, 2004 @ 10:36am):

I have to agree with Mark. I for one am a religious conservative; however, my father is not. He is an agnostic. But he is every bit against embryonic stem cell research as the Pope. And my father is not somehow alone in being an agnostic against not only stem cell research but abortion. I have come across many people of sincerity and good will who, while adhering to no certain religious dogmas, nontheless oppose embryonic stem cell research.

The science of embryonic stem cell research is dubious at best. If it weren't there would be private investors en mass willing to put their money into something that might be hugely profitable. Proposition 71 might look on the outside like another California gold rush, but California will only be three billion dollars more in debt as a result of it, with nothing to show for it except maybe a guilty conscience. The gold rush that this editorial laments on losing out on really never had gold to begin with. All that glitters is not gold.

Anonymous (November 11, 2004 @ 10:38am):

Baumgardner,
you write a response regarding ethics in medical research, and include the statement: "Even most, if not all, secularists would agree that human experimentation in Nazi Germany was wrong, even with all the medical benefits that resulted from that."
What medical benefits? The knowledge that a non-consenting subject will freeze when submerged in ice water or buried naked in the snow, or what chemcals are most effective at sterilization when injected into the womb?
While some in the scientific community do support the use of Nazi medical research, most believe that to cite the research is to condone it. You seem to fall into the latter category.
I think there is a distinct difference between information gathered by torturing non-consenting prisoners and using stem cells for research.

Anonymous (November 11, 2004 @ 12:24pm):

There is, however, no distinct difference if the point is conceded that embryos are humans.

We are taught to regard the embryo stage as merely one stage in the sequence of human development, not that the embryo is pre-human. If a scheme of logic allows us to say that embryos are pre-human simply because they are not fully developed, that same logic would allow us to say that infants are not really human because they are not fully developed. The same would go for toddlers, etc.

What is being submitted for consideration is that embryos are "nonconsenting prisoners," that the victims of Josef Mengele are the historical analogs of todays embryos created and destroyed solely for medical testing. Even more strikingly, the information gathered by Mengele as a result of his evil experiments have been used in helping America in its early space program, particularly the high altitude and freezing experiments. Still, it would be horrendously misguided to suggest that Mengele wasn't that bad after all because his research actually bore fruit.

Now, we are led to consider embryonic research. Are we to suggest that the benefits outweigh the ethical implications of such research? The creation of human life only for the means of destroying it to serve some utilitarian benefit?