Finding Common Ground On Stem Cell Research
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Legislation, TechnologyA new article from Wired points to how the other stem cell approaches are needed in order to make true strides in this field.
A bill drafted by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland) would devote $15 million to exploring the four alternatives. In the scheme of things it’s not much, considering that in 2004 the government spent $24.3 million on embryonic stem-cell research and $203.3 million on adult stem-cell research. If it passes, the funding likely won’t take away from potential future funding of “real” embryonic stem-cell research.The Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, which advocates for funding embryonic stem-cell research, called the alternative proposals “anti-stem-cell-research” decoys. It’s true that most of those people supporting the alternatives want to avoid destroying embryos for ethical or moral reasons. But at least the people behind the alternatives are seeking common ground, unlike those on either side of the debate who are locked in dogmatic stances.
Bartlett may be politically motivated, but his argument makes sense. “If HR810 is the only option,” Bartlett said, “the country will lose at least two to four years of time and investment by the federal government in pluripotent stem-cell research.” As much as embryonic stem-cell supporters might hate to agree with him, they should.
I’m willing to try it out if for no other reason to have more options on the table. If we could develop a way to create these stem cells without destroying an embryo, I think that would be an amazing breakthrough.
It only makes more sense to try other approaches while we’re trying embroynic. Anything else is short-sighted.
This entry was posted on Friday, July 22nd, 2005 and is filed under Legislation, Technology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 8th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
The ridiculous thing about this issue is how little the press for whatever reason publicizes how much farther along adult stem cell research is than embryonic, which is nowhere near clinical trials in the US and has a freakish ability to spark tumors in research subjects. If I had to guess, I’d say it’s a mix of preference for the controversial story (the science vs. religion canard) and a little bit of old fashioned hostility of editors to religious groups.