Opinion: Column
Important cures stem from cells
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Sean Kittridge:
- Sanford and the art of lazy lying (June 26, 2009)
- Wisconsin budget follies induce flailing, head-shaking (June 18, 2009)
- Wiscard good for UW's funds, bad for students' (June 13, 2009)
- Scared straight: Use fear to force police into enforcement equality (June 5, 2009)
- Selig sets horrific example for undergraduates (May 5, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
If you ever wondered whether scientists knew how to party, Monday night was your chance to find out (I like to think they serve drinks in beakers and play “pin the hydroxylysine on the glycoprotein”). On a day that will go down in lab coat-and-goggles history, President Barack Obama continued his “Undo Everything Bush Did ‘09” Tour by lifting the federal funding limits on embryonic stem cell research. George W. Bush’s ban, which has done wonders to slow important research for the last eight years, was never very popular in the Madison area, as we claim to be the de facto birthplace of the stem cell — and the Steve Miller Band, which is far more morally objectionable — but there is little doubt this move will cause a national stir. Some will object that this is not a cause that deserves taxpayer funding. Others will cringe at the idea of scientists playing God. Rev. Jeremiah Wright will question why our bodies have so many white blood cells and so few black ones. But with new complaints from interest groups coming in faster than feminists to a Planned Parenthood grand opening, it’s probably time to either rule this stuff out as hot air or start finding ways to save our souls. After all, until science can cure the rapture, I want to make sure I’m playing my cards right.
Naturally, the first boo bird to call “fowl” — get it? — was the Catholic Church. Over the weekend, the Vatican newspaper, which is essentially two pages of editorial and a Family Circus cartoon, reiterated their stance that the research is “deeply immoral.” This is nothing new, as some embryonic stem cells are gathered from aborted fetuses, and the Vatican is notorious about not liking anything outside of one, Da Vinci; two, pointed hats and three, Zack and Cody. Moreover, it’s not the responsibility of the government to put any one group’s ideology over the lifesaving potential of this research. I’d go out on a limb and say that it’s “deeply immoral” to sit idle while people die of diseases that could be more easily handled with the assistance of stem cell research. Nobody is saying we should kill every firstborn and harvest their stem cells so the middle-aged can live forever, but if the technology and resources are available, the government has the right to serve the greater public good. Besides, who’d be crazy enough to say that?
Not to be outdone by the pious men in Rome, the Family Research Council leaned on conservative doctrine by saying, “Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for experiments that require the destruction of human life.” Said to be one of the nation’s largest Christian political organizations, the FRC has long been against any sort of experimenting, which is why they also support abstinence-only sex education and creationism. But you’d think that if Nancy Reagan — the wife of Right Wing Jesus — supported embryonic stem cell research, you could maybe swing their opinions the other way. Unfortunately, they’re too morally sound to buy that, and I don’t blame them — she was his second wife. More to the point, our taxes get spent in an innumerable amount of poor ways and to single out this research is much more effective as a talking point than a real policy.
The third fear, which Obama already put to rest by saying it is “dangerous and profoundly wrong,” is cloning. Although it’s still probably more Star Wars-esque fantasy than tangible reality, it’s important to remember stem cell research is intended to aid and cure existing diseases in existing people, not to create a race of super-Americans. That’s what Michael Phelps was for, although we’d try to keep the super race out of South Carolina.
We are entering a brave new world, and it’s an exciting time to be in the scientific community. There are going to be some fears — both rational and irrational — and if I saw Newman with a hollowed out Barbasol can, I’d totally stay away from Costa Rica, but after eight years of waiting, progress can finally start at a reasonable pace. And with UW leading the way, it’s a great day to be a Badger.
Sean Kittridge (kittridge@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in journalism.
12 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
How dare you criticize the Catholic Church! Dammit, don’t you enjoy this flat world around which the whole universe rotates? Blasphemy!
what do you have against the steve miller band, lol. i thought it was really strange that you chose to add that parenthetical. i know you were just kidding, but what are you trying to do? make half the people that read the article think you’re not down with steve miller band? while simultaneously understating the moral issues related to stem cell research? you succeeded! hahaha
-michael cella, someone who enjoys the pleasant vibrations of the steve miller band when hangin’ hard (and also is way down with stem cell research)
The Catholic Church has long been the only defender of human life. The title mentions important cures, but fails to name a single one. hmmm…..
Jornalism is a dangerous career path my friend. But I aggree, in whole its goods times looking forward. However, I suggest you visit Amsterdam and watch the stem cell therapy in progress on their local TV channel. We have along way to go to play catch up.
@12:50: You know that the headline was written by a random editor of the newspaper and not by the author, right?
PS: Alzheimer’s, diabetes, Parkinson’s, spinal damage, heart disease, etc etc etc
Hey sean,
Can you tell me what exactly you are saving those who may benefit from embryonic stem cell research from?
Are you not just prolonging death?
Again, what are you saving them from and can you explain to all of us here exactly what suffering is and while you’re at it explain to us the purpose of life?
When you can give us a clear answer on those questions then you might have a legitimate reason to destroy human life. Until then don’t throw the words “deeply immoral” at those of us who want to protect ALL forms of human life even if it is at the expense of those already privileged enough to have been loved and felt the light of the sun because I doubt that you really even know what “morality” is. Seriously.
I find it hypocritical that so called “scientists” or those like Sean who subscribe to “science only” reality scoff at the philosophy of religion but then will use so called “morality” as an excuse to further their non theistic agenda.
It’s just inconsistent, but then again I have never debated a non theist who wasn’t.
For the record, I would be willing to debate this issue live and in person with anyone who is interested, leave a response and I will register and email whoever is interested.
OK, I’m done ranting.
@10:07
Isn’t any type of medical procedure just prolonging death? Should we stop doing any type of surgery then? Great idea! We could save loads of money by just letting everyone who’s going to die just die.
How come “scientists” that claim “science only” can’t have morals? Just because they don’t believe in a deity means that they have no clue what is moral and what isn’t? That’s quite a bold assumption. I think a scientist who knows what his stem cell research could potentially do has a better idea of the morality of the situation then someone who thinks that we’re killing babies for stem cells.
10:07:
I’m curious as to why you think that someone has to be “science only” to get behind stem cell research. There is middle ground. Believing in, or supporting, science - evolution, stem cells etc - does not imply a person rejects religious philosophy.
@ 1130
What are morals and who gets to define them?
And to answer your first question, should we keep 110 y/o ladies on life support forever just because we have the technology? You are the same people who wanted Schivo disconnected from a simple feeding tube because her life wasn’t worth living. The hypocrisy and inconsistencies never stop with “you people,” using so called “compassion” and “morality” when it seems to suit your position and ONLY when it suits your position.
For the record, I am a Healthcare professional that has assisted in 1000’s of surgeries, including C-sections for premie babies. Don’t lecture me that some lab rat knows more about human life and when it begins than I do. The fact that human life begins at conception, has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with scientific facts.
So once again the question is…. since it is a scientific FACT that human life starts at conception, who gets to define morality?
Should scientists, who don’t even believe in ultimate purpose and therefore morals are relative get to decide? Good old “might = right” democracy? That’s sick and irrational behavior, but then again I guess according to most scientists we are all just monkeys with less hair.
I come with consistent, rational and scientific evidence to support the protection of all human life from conception to natural death.
You people come with inconsistent, irrational and convenient “morality” to support the destruction of human embryos.
Psst, whatever.
Great article, Sean. One of your best.
-MC 1221
2:46
Since we’re going by scientific facts, evolution is a scientific FACT. So if you’re supporting scientific FACTS you shouldn’t be criticizing scientists who believe in evolution. Inconsistency…
Doesn’t mean evolution is right, if you don’t believe science is right. Then you also don’t believe that human life begins at conception, seeing as that’s a scientific FACT. Inconsistency…
Indeed some greater being could have put fossils on this planet and be fooling us with species patterns and the patterns of evolution that we see. However, according to science, evolution is a FACT. It has nothing to do with religion.
Maybe let the 110 year old lady pass away. What about young people that stem cells can help? Should we deny them help?
Should we let people who believe in a greater being and therefore morals are relative decide what is moral? Sure is working for Islamic extremists, right? Should anybody decide what is moral? It’s a hard topic.
But work on your consistency before accusing others of inconsistency.
Macro-evolution is not a scientific fact it is a theory based on micro-evolution. There are no fossils that support any links between different KINDS of creatures.
I believe in micro-evolution, we can and have witnessed this event and is actually what the fossils witness to.
For the record, I don’t think speciation or common decent are horrible theories (based on the assumption that there is no creator), but common decent is just a theory that lacks hard evidence.
I only mentioned evolution as a way to express how people who ONLY believe in evolution (and don’t believe in an ultimate purpose) have nothing to gauge morality with. IOW, we are all just evolved monkeys and morality is relative. Those people should stick with “science” and not inject inconsistent morality clauses into their work.
Get it.
I have no inconsistencies in my argument, I have been doing this for a long time and you won’t find any real inconsistencies in my argument only straw-man arguments made by those who won’t confront the contradictions in their own philosophies.
Again, my whole point was not that non-theists shouldn’t have opinions about what they “feel” is right and wrong, it’s when those people try to use morality as an argument against those who oppose the destruction of human embryos-as Sean did in his article.
It’s inconsistent.
And just for clarification, what’s with the “MAYBE let the 110 lady pass away”? Should we or shouldn’t we, who gets to decide?
As far as young people who “might” be able to benefit from embryonic stem cell research, it depends on your morality. You obviously think it’s moral to kill one human being to help another, even without the consent of the sacrificed human being.
“Out of sight, out of mind” if they can’t speak up for themselves, then they must not really be human.
Balderdash, and you know it!
Peace.