Atlantis Online
March 28, 2024, 08:15:17 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Hunt for Lost City of Atlantis
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3227295.stm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Stem Cell Research: the Possibilities

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Stem Cell Research: the Possibilities  (Read 315 times)
0 Members and 116 Guests are viewing this topic.
Kristina
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4558



« on: July 30, 2007, 02:31:16 am »

Foes of stem-cell research create their own scientific reality

The Stowers Institute for Medical Research has spoken. If Missouri bans embryonic stem-cell research, as some legislators want, the institute will not build a second facility in Kansas City. Is that understood?

California needs no such warnings. Not only does the state allow this research, but it may soon raise $3 billion of its own money to pay for it. New Jersey, meanwhile, plans to spend $6.5 million on a stem-cell-research facility.

All these things are happening at the state level because President Bush has refused to commit the federal government to advancing the study of embryonic stem cells. The research could find cures for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and other diseases. Polls show a public solidly for it. But anti-abortion groups object to the research because it destroys embryos, and Bush wants the groups' support.

So rather than ban embryonic stem-cell research in an honest and straightforward manner, Bush has created confusion and a pretend compromise. His famous executive order of three years ago allowed funding for research only on the 79 embryonic stem-cell lines existing on Aug. 9, 2001 — 58 of which were useless.

And he was willing to spend a big $25 million a year on it. That number must have Californians rolling with laughter as they prepare to approve a bond issue allocating eight times as much each year for 10 years.

If Bush believes destroying embryos is immoral, why does he support any research on embryonic stem cells at all? And why doesn't he ban the practice of in vitro fertilization, which creates embryos that get thrown out? And, finally, what's so magical about the date Aug. 9, 2001?

Opponents of embryonic stem-cell research must contend with polls showing that 73 percent of the public supports it. So they have created their own scientific reality. They drag in scientists who claim that adult stem cells, taken from bone marrow or umbilical cords, can also produce cures — no need to destroy embryos.

Serious biologists say that's nonsense. Adult stem cells may have their uses, but only the embryonic stem cells can divide and produce new cells for replacing tissue. Really, if the nation's biotech centers thought adult stem cells would do the trick, would they be out fighting the religious right over the use of embryos?

Meanwhile, first lady Laura Bush has been sent out to throw cold water on the hopes for embryonic stem-cell research — and also drum up some resentment against its backers. "My dad died of Alzheimer's," she said recently. "And to hear people say that cures are right at our fingertips — it's just not right."

What's not right is to deprive Americans of reasonable hope for a medical breakthrough, even if it takes 10 or 20 years. There's something else Laura Bush doesn't get: For people who have lost a loved one to an awful disease, the fight is not over. Many dedicate themselves to helping find a cure for the disease that caused such suffering — often as a tribute to the one who died. Laura Bush needs a long talk with former first lady Nancy Reagan, who is pushing for embryonic stem-cell research. The death of Nancy's husband, Ronald Reagan, from the ravages of Alzheimer's has not dimmed her desire for a cure.

Of course, the Californians supporting the bond issue expect rewards beyond the joy of finding miracle cures. The $3 billion would stay in the state as a giant welcome mat for biotech companies. If you were a big company looking for a place to put your biotech research park, where would you rather go: to Missouri, where lawmakers want to make your life's work into a felony? Or to California, where the state is strewing dollars in your path?

While a few states struggle to move forward, Bush seems content to let American medical research fall into decline. John Kerry says he would not stand by as the states and private philanthropy go it alone against Britain, South Korea and other biotech powers.

But even if Bush wins in November, the more enlightened states have their Plan B: to groom themselves as American refuges for 21st-century science. The others will become backwaters. And it will be up to Missouri to decide what kind of state it wants to be.

Providence Journal columnist Froma Harrop's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Her e-mail address is fharrop@projo.com


Copyright 2004, The Providence Journal Co.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002043479_harrop23.html
Report Spam   Logged

"Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances."

Thomas Jefferson
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy