Why an amendment.

USA > Economy
from the February 25, 2004 edition

States race to lead stem-cell research

New Jersey governor plans to spend $6.5 million a year over the next 5 years, California hopes for $300 million a year.

By Ron Scherer | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

NEW YORK – This could mark society's next forward step as it moves from the information age to the bioscience era. One important catalyst of this movement is stem-cell research - a controversial, new scientific field that analyzes the building blocks of life. Some people even envision an entire new medical field - which would involve thousands of jobs that could not be easily outsourced.
Seeing this potential, a number of states are beginning a race to fund the stem-cell field. Yesterday, the governor of New Jersey, in his budget proposal, said he wanted to spend $6.5 million a year over five years. Wisconsin, which considers itself a leader in the field, is already paying salaries and funding laboratories. A group is trying to get a ballot initiative in California that would commit the state to spend almost $300 million a year on such research.
"In 20 years, you can't imagine a major university without a stem-cell program," says Andrew Cohn, a spokesman for the WiCell Research Institute, a research organization associated with the University of Wisconsin.
The field is growing so fast that last year there were 71 bills introduced in 29 states that could potentially affect embryonic or fetal stem-cell research, says Alissa Johnson, a senior policy specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures in Washington. Only five bills were actually enacted, but there are 34 bills being carried over in 13 states. So far this year, 11 new bills have been introduced in six states, she says.
"At this point most states are looking to regulate embryonic research via cloning," she says.
But, not all states are trying to enact regulations that limit research.
New Jersey's Gov. James McGreevey signed legislation Jan. 4 that would legalize stem-cell research. In fact, the Garden State feels it has a natural advantage over the competition. It already hosts the operations of such companies as Johnson & Johnson, Pharmacia, Ciba-Geigy, and Merck.
"We have more PhDs per square mile than anywhere [else] in the country," brags Micah Rasmussen, a spokesman for Gov. James McGreevey. "That's a reason why so many pharmaceutical companies have located here, and people make these type of decisions every day."
To encourage stem-cell research in the Garden State, last month the governor signed a law legalizing the field, including work with cells that cannot be used with federal funds. The state's $6.5 million expenditure will be supplemented with $3.5 million of private funds. "We plan to hire researchers from around the world," says Mr. Rasmussen.

continued
http://csmonitor.com/2004/0225/p01s03-usec.html


Can we expect to see a call from the administration and the religious right for an amendment to stem this 'blasphemy"

au,
While I am hopeful for the hundreds of thousands of people that could be helped by the possibilities of stem cell research, I have a question for you about something that bothers me some about this line of research.

Don't you find it even a LITTLE distasteful and a bit morally shaky to fertilize eggs so that we can 'harvest' the embryos of stem cells?

I am not saying we should place a ban on it yet, nor do I think that the U.S. should allow it's research to fall behind in this field, but the whole process just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Just wanted your opinion...

Not distateful at all. The fertilization of cells in no way, at least IMO' has a particular significance.
I believe that if there is such a thing as a soul it enters the body at birth.

I should add in any event it is a theological concept and should not be a question to be answered, judged or interfered with by our supposedly secular government.

I guess then, my question is, where is the line?

Will it be ok in the future to place your DNA in an egg, raise it to about the 8 month stage and then 'harvest' the kidney that you need because you lost one in an accident ?

By your statement, since the child wasn't 'born' it had no soul and wasn't a person and thus: 'No harm, no foul.'

It's scenarios like this that give me the heebie jeebies.

Now it may seem like I am blowing it out of proportion here, but please remember once you set a legal precedent, the lawyers will pull it and stretch it until it no longer resembles what it started out os.

Just looking for your input.

Federal
That is not the way the research is going. They are not growing people inorder to use them as spare parts. They are attempting to grow specific organs and cells to replace and repair damaged nerves and organs
I have a very personal stake in this research. Even though any discoveries will come to late to help me. Am afflicted with an incurable neurological condition. One which very much limits my quality of life. I can only hope that research can continue towards the cure without the interference of that religious hypocrite in the White House so that in the future people can be relieved of this suffering.

From IHT

With his re-election campaign barely started and his conservative base already demanding tribute, President George W. Bush proposes to radically rewrite the U.S. Constitution. The amendment he announced support for on Tuesday could not only keep gay couples from marrying, as he maintains, but could also threaten the basic legal protections that gay Americans have won in recent years. It would inject meanspiritedness and exclusion into the document embodying Americans' highest principles and aspirations..
If Bush had been acting as a president Tuesday, rather than a presidential candidate, he would have tried to guide the United States on the divisive question of what rights gay Americans have. Across America, elected officials and others have been weighing in on whether they believe gays should be allowed to marry, have civil unions, adopt, visit their partners in hospitals and be free from employment discrimination. Except for a throwaway line about proceeding with "kindness and good will and decency," the president's speech was a call for taking rights away from gay Americans..
Bush's studied unwillingness to talk about the rights gay people do have is particularly significant given the wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment now pending in Congress. It calls for denying same-sex couples not only marriage, but also its "legal incidents." It could well be used to deny gay couples even economic benefits, which are now widely recognized by cities, states and corporations. Such an amendment could radically roll back the rights of millions of Americans..
In his remarks Tuesday, Bush tried to create a sense of crisis. He talked of the highest Massachusetts court's recognition of gay marriage, San Francisco officials' decision to grant marriage licenses to gay couples and a New Mexico county's doing the same thing. He did not say the New Mexico attorney general found that gay marriages violate state law, the California attorney general is asking the California Supreme Court to review San Francisco's actions, and Massachusetts is considering amending its State Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. The president, who believes so strongly in states' rights in other contexts, should let the states do their jobs and work out their marriage laws before resorting to a constitutional amendment..
The Constitution has been amended over the years to bring women, blacks and young people into fuller citizenship. Bush's amendment would be the first adopted to stigmatize and exclude a group of Americans. Polls show that while a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, many would prefer to allow the states to resolve the issue rather than adopting a constitutional amendment. They understand what Bush does not: The Constitution is too important to be folded, spindled or mutilated for political gain.

Politics Uber allus

While I feel for your problem, I still can't get over the thought that we are standing on the edge of a great moral precipice.
As I said in my previous post, I am not saying that such things should be banned outright, I am saying that some very stringent restrictions on just HOW FAR this type of science can be allowed to go.

You may not see the path that leads from "Only growing embryos for the purpose of harvesting stem cells" to the "Lets let them grow a little longer and harvest whole organs" but I can see the series of steps that can be taken, leading us to that point.

I just have grave moral and ethical concerns over what good research can be perverted into if certain safeguards are not put in place early.

Federal
You are playing the "What If" game. What if the earth is flat? What if fire will burn my house down? What if my marriage will fail? What if the plane will crash? You get the picture. Should we stop progress and discovery based upon the possibility of a bad outcome?
If man had done that we would still be living in caves eating raw meat.

AU, I believe that your closeness to this subject has blinded you to the point I am trying to make. I am not speaking of stopping this line of research entirely, I am saying we have to have guidelines as to exactly how far it can go.

I am sure that when the first team to attempt a kidney transplant was breaking new ground, the last thing they thought was: "Well isn't this opening the door for hundreds of poor people in third world countries to sell one of their kidneys for money to feed their families" And yet we later had to pass a law because that is exactly what ended up happening in some of the poorest parts of the world.

Does that put us back in caves eating meat? No, but it does establish what point we have decided to draw a 'line in the sand'. Has this stoped research into how to better transplant a kidney ? No, because we think those are good things. But we decided to stop the immoral practice of taking advantage of the poor who have nothing else to sell but pieces of themselves.

This is why I am saying that using embryos for stem cell research needs to be developed and examined for the limitless possibilities it offers, but I think we must establish exactly how far we will allow this to go BEFORE we find ourselves in a place we don't want to be.

Drawing the line is one thing. This president of ours [may he rest in peace] Did everything he could to shut the door. Based upon his religious beliefs or at least on those of his base. The deaf dumb and blind religious right. Shutting the door is the line that he established. Just another reason for the sane among us not to reelect this low life.

So you do understand the 'line' I was speaking of?

I do not believe that any line of investigation that shows as much possibility as stem cells should be restricted. Nor do I think that other lines of research should be hampered.

Yet at some point, we have to look at what we have wrought and say, "This is it, this is far enough". I just think we need to establish that line BEFORE someone steps across it because it's impossible to put the genie 'back in the bottle' once that like has been crossed.

Fed, in regard to stem cell research, there are defenite stages of development of the fertalized egg.

Many researchers who speak on the subject speak of not allowing the growth past a particular stage of cellular division, whereupon the cells are separated (as stem cells).

As for "pulling and stretching" the line, your argument makes sense, and I can see where alot of people have problems with it. The great thing about stem cell research though is that the cells are taken at such an early age that there is no chance for there to be any kind of significant growth at all into anything even close to a fetus.

The only people that can really have a serious problem with it are the ones that feel human life starts at conception. Otherwise, its all good. The benefits FAR outweigh any negative arguments (other than the one I just said).

It can be argued that when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell that a truly unique cell is formed and that cell is therefore considered to be sacred. That
cell then has the capability of becoming a person.

Just thought I would throw my 2 cent wrench in the works.

I wonder how long until we can grow stemcells from non-embyonic cells.