OPINION & EDITORIAL
Amended bill to hurt stem-cell research
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Rob Rossmeissl:
- Trolley proposal deserves thought (May 1, 2007)
- U.S. should re-evaluate free trade agreements to improve economy (April 24, 2007)
- High quality city inspires progress (April 17, 2007)
- Comic relief important in movies (April 9, 2007)
- Shout outs harbor hatred (March 26, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Celling our future (November 7, 2005)
- Straight to the bank (October 4, 2005)
- California Dreamin' (November 11, 2004)
- Stem-cell research should receive funding (August 8, 2006)
- Vote Doyle for governor (November 2, 2006)
by Rob Rossmeissl
Friday, April 22, 2005
It seemed like Wisconsin was going to stick to its progressive tradition. Although President George W. Bush had enacted a policy on stem-cell research prohibiting federal funding for the acquisition of new embryonic stem-cell lines, Wisconsin had taken it’s own steps to advance the science. Via actions such as Gov. Jim Doyle’s fiscal commitment to embryonic stem-cell research in his most recent budget, the state seemed to support the study of embryonic stem cells. Unfortunately, just as things were looking up for embryonic stem-cell research in Wisconsin, proponents of the research hit a roadblock.
Last week, the Wisconsin State Assembly approved a proposal by State Rep. Steve Kestell, R-Elkhart Lake, to amend Assembly Bill 206 — a bill designed to give tax incentives to state companies doing developmental research. If the bill is passed by the State Senate and signed by Gov. Doyle, this amendment will forbid the state from financially encouraging companies that utilize embryonic stem cells harvested after August of 2001.
The recent actions taken by Rep. Kestell and the State Assembly bring back an exhausted issue: the moral dilemma of procuring new embryonic stem-cell lines. This quandary is far different than that to which it is often compared.
Regardless of their disagreement on the issue, most people who support a woman’s right to choose can at least have empathy toward those who oppose abortion on moral grounds. Opposition to embryonic stem-cell research, however, is very difficult to understand.
The moral issue that many people take with embryonic stem-cell research, although well intentioned, is hardly justified. While embryonic stem-cell lines must come from a human embryo, it is possible to harvest them from embryos facing inevitable destruction in fertility clinics. Using common sense, it seems one could only come to the conclusion that an embryo facing certain destruction may as well be used to advance the human race.
Generally, stem-cell research employs a few different types of stem cells. Blood stem cells (found in the bone marrow of humans), embryonic stem cells (taken from human embryos that are a few days old) and umbilical cord stem cells (taken from the blood of an umbilical cord) are three different types of stem cells used for research. According to the Washington Post, it is widely agreed that embryonic stem cells hold the most potential for curing ailments such as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s disease and spinal cord injuries. Given the aforementioned possible sources for embryonic stem-cell lines, why is there controversy over a science that seems so promising?
Even if the Bush administration stands by idly while Europe and the rest of the world take action to advance and encourage the promise of embryonic stem-cell research, Wisconsin has the opportunity to embrace progress on its own. Not only is state promotion of embryonic stem-cell research an opportunity to greatly advance the science and its potential, it is good economic policy. With state financial incentives for embryonic stem-cell research, such as the tax credit that was originally proposed in Wisconsin State Assembly Bill 206, Wisconsin could attract a substantial portion of the booming business that is developmental research involving embryonic stem cells. No matter how you frame the issue, it is difficult to understand the opposition to state promotion of embryonic stem-cell research.
Wisconsin has a rich tradition in progress. Home to revolutionary politicos such as “Fighting Bob” LaFollette, the state has always cherished its motto: “Forward.” With this in mind, it would seem fitting that Wisconsin embrace embryonic stem-cell research. Promoting this field of research would not only bolster the state economy; it would re-establish the state as a place where scientific progress trumps the moral whims of the few.
Rob Rossmeissl (writerossy@writeme.com) is a sophomore majoring in political science.
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 1:45am):
Stem cells are a wonderful and powerful tool that could potentially revolutionize medicine. But that does not justify sacrificing one life for the sake of healing another.
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 3:15am):
"While embryonic stem-cell lines must come from a human embryo, it is possible to harvest them from embryos facing inevitable destruction in fertility clinics."
this is not 'sacrificing' a life!
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 3:25am):
Jesus sacrificed his life for ours.. Sacrifice = Good.. Sacrifice Stem Cells for Good of People is Like Jesus..
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 6:37am):
It's issues like this that will eventually force me to leave the Republican Party. First the Democrats alienated me, now this.
Oy.
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 7:45am):
"forbid the state from financially encouraging companies"
What the heck does that even mean? Does that mean that the state will not pay them?
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 8:54am):
Killing an already to be destroyed embryo is bad, but what we are doing in Iraq is good?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1580005,00.html
Hypocrisy is a sin.
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 9:13am):
"What the heck does that even mean? Does that mean that the state will not pay them?"
Of course that's what it means. How is that a difficult idea to comprehend?
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 9:33am):
It is a very convoluted way of saying something very simple. It also happens to be a very political way of saying something beyond the simple assertion.
For example: Lawmakers forbid the state from financially encouraging people to breathe. In other words, "the state doesn't pay people to breathe". Of course, by saying it the second way, no one gets to "forbid" anyone from doing anything.
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 9:39am):
The President was the first president ever to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. Yet, all we hear about is how he "banned" that same research. It's a real non-sequitur.
If what you really believe is that he is not paying enough for stem cell research, then why not say that?
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 9:50am):
That timesonline article reference is terribly irrelevant.
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 9:55am):
I think it is wrong of the president to deny access to new stem cell lines. I think that the fact that he modestly funded research that only really became viable under his watch is no accomplishment at all.
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 12:50pm):
nasal cavity stem cells and adult stem cells are much more promising and easier to work with, and far less controversial.
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 5:27pm):
"nasal + adult stem cells"
where are you getting your biased information?
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 5:29pm):
fetal cells will be used no matter what.. people are already funding off-shore and international laboratories for them so trying to stop the inevitable is a waste of your time..
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 6:41pm):
Protect the unborn. Protect life.
Please.
Anonymous (April 23, 2005 @ 12:36am):
Fuck the unborn.
Anonymous (April 23, 2005 @ 12:41am):
Preach on brother! If I was aborted, I trust my parents to have made the right decision. I'm not selfish saying "I would like to have been born and to be given a chance!!".. I put full trust in my parents to create or kill me..
Anonymous (April 23, 2005 @ 9:25am):
"Protect the unborn"
Because if there's one thing that this world needs, it's more people - NOT!!!!!!!!
Anonymous (April 23, 2005 @ 9:35am):
If the embryos are slated for destruction I say use them to save the living. Doesn't that "Protect life"? Wouldn't anything else be a true waste?
Anonymous (April 23, 2005 @ 12:57pm):
Hey Rob, why dont you do stem-cell research on my ball-sack.
Anonymous (April 23, 2005 @ 5:04pm):
That's all you got is a sack, no balls, right?
Anonymous (April 23, 2005 @ 5:28pm):
Hey guy, I got no balls cause your mom ate 'em.
Anonymous (April 24, 2005 @ 9:14am):
The Lord shall bless you.
Protect Life.
please.
Anonymous (April 24, 2005 @ 1:00pm):
You have a great point: having an abortion is wrong. But you still haven't explained exactly why we have to criminalize them. A woman has to make a personal, oftentimes religious choice about abortion; a country can ONLY make a civil one. And like it or not, you can't force people to make the right decision by fiat.
Anonymous (April 24, 2005 @ 2:28pm):
Protect Life, End War.
Anonymous (April 24, 2005 @ 6:55pm):
Protect life, kill republicans
Anonymous (August 23, 2005 @ 12:45am):
fda
