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 ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in electrical engineering.