The Classicist: "The Stem Cell Issue, Revived" by Trent England

The Stem Cell Issue, Revived
September 1st, 2004 As long as we’re revisiting Vietnam, let’s revisit the topic of stem cell research - specifically, the use of embryonic stem cells for research. While the subject certainly isn’t the stuff of recent headline and polemic talking points, it’s still as relevant as long as John Kerry is running for president. Moreover, still as relevant as long as it is still a campaign issue of his. And what a campaign issue it is – the official Kerry-Edwards website lists seven issues under their “Plan for America” – not one of them is the issue of stem cell research. Oddly enough, the end of June and the beginning of July marked Kerry’s science week – just a few weeks after the death of President Ronald Reagan. When was the last time Kerry campaigned about stem cells? Bush has only had to defend himself on this position just because his opponent has found it politically convenient. And – surprise – the media didn’t call him on it. Well, now that we’re over the Democratic National Convention, and now that we’re into the Republican National Convention, the political climate has changed. Obviously, the strong attack by the Swift Vets has left Kerry lagging in the polls – and rightly so. The senator is dealing with the repercussions of issues he brings to the national stage and on what his opponents and detractors call him and into which the voters delve. This has pushed into the spotlight his questionable Vietnam service, his post-war antics, his liberal record in the senate, his support for the war and subsequent opposition to fund it, and now his support for federally funded embryonic stem cell research. Oh, that. John Kerry seems to be a bright senator, right? He attended a Swiss boarding school. He’s schooled in more than one language, and he’s got a Yale education under his belt. Surely his advisors and fact-checkers (are they hiring?) are bright, too. The problem isn’t likely that he is misinformed himself, but that he is misinforming those within his own party and those potential voters who are sympathetic to remarks about putting science before ideology, and having faith in the ethical decisions scientists will make. So what listeners to his radio address heard was a sympathetic, caring John Kerry: “Today, more than 100 million Americans have illnesses that one day could be cured or treated with stem-cell therapy.” Don’t fall for it. It’s not a plea to let objective scientists do their job without restrictions of the government. It’s a subtle campaign jab. He goes on: “Above all, we must look to the future not with fear, but with the hope and the faith that advances in medicine will advance our best values.” Who’s afraid? And of what? Yes, it’s our President and those silly pro-lifers who are afraid. They’re afraid of advancements in medicine - always choosing ideology over science. Remember, this is not a new issue. It wasn’t until 1993 that federal funding was available for stem cell research. In 1994, President Clinton signed an executive order that stopped federally funded research on human embryos. Where was Kerry’s call for Clinton to stop putting ideology before science? From 1996 – 2000, Clinton’s federal budgets prohibited federal funding of "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." In 2000, President Bush is elected, and the policy remains the same. You would think it wouldn’t be an issue. But President Regan died, giving Kerry an opportunity to either be quiet or politicize it. Even Kerry can’t get politicizing the event right. He misinforms voters further by claiming that President Bush has enacted a ban on stem cell research. Not true. In fact, much is going on in the private sector. But that’s not good enough for John Kerry. Research has to come from tax dollars, even tax dollars of pro-lifers and those who oppose the process. And also, there’s the little problem of the private sector. If Kerry informed all of us, it might sound like the private sector was actually doing some good. Take this statement for example: "People of goodwill and good sense can resolve the ethical issues without stopping lifesaving research." Translated: “This issue will be resolved by scientists and will be paid for with your tax dollars. If you oppose this, you have no goodwill and no good sense.” If Kerry is elected, and if he does lift the ban to fund embryonic research, he will be expected to live up to his former hope that “…illnesses…. could be cured or treated with stem-cell therapy.” Two things are likely to occur (more likely than stem cells curing Alzheimer’s): a) Kerry was wrong and the research produces no such promises or b) Kerry was right and we have new cures for such major illnesses. We’re pulling for scenario a.
Back

The Stem Cell Issue, Revived

September 1st, 2004

As long as we’re revisiting Vietnam, let’s revisit the topic of stem cell research - specifically, the use of embryonic stem cells for research.

While the subject certainly isn’t the stuff of recent headline and polemic talking points, it’s still as relevant as long as John Kerry is running for president. Moreover, still as relevant as long as it is still a campaign issue of his.

And what a campaign issue it is – the official Kerry-Edwards website lists seven issues under their “Plan for America” – not one of them is the issue of stem cell research. Oddly enough, the end of June and the beginning of July marked Kerry’s science week – just a few weeks after the death of President Ronald Reagan. When was the last time Kerry campaigned about stem cells? Bush has only had to defend himself on this position just because his opponent has found it politically convenient. And – surprise – the media didn’t call him on it.

Well, now that we’re over the Democratic National Convention, and now that we’re into the Republican National Convention, the political climate has changed. Obviously, the strong attack by the Swift Vets has left Kerry lagging in the polls – and rightly so. The senator is dealing with the repercussions of issues he brings to the national stage and on what his opponents and detractors call him and into which the voters delve. This has pushed into the spotlight his questionable Vietnam service, his post-war antics, his liberal record in the senate, his support for the war and subsequent opposition to fund it, and now his support for federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

Oh, that. John Kerry seems to be a bright senator, right? He attended a Swiss boarding school. He’s schooled in more than one language, and he’s got a Yale education under his belt. Surely his advisors and fact-checkers (are they hiring?) are bright, too. The problem isn’t likely that he is misinformed himself, but that he is misinforming those within his own party and those potential voters who are sympathetic to remarks about putting science before ideology, and having faith in the ethical decisions scientists will make. So what listeners to his radio address heard was a sympathetic, caring John Kerry:

“Today, more than 100 million Americans have illnesses that one day could be cured or treated with stem-cell therapy.”

Don’t fall for it. It’s not a plea to let objective scientists do their job without restrictions of the government. It’s a subtle campaign jab. He goes on:

“Above all, we must look to the future not with fear, but with the hope and the faith that advances in medicine will advance our best values.”

Who’s afraid? And of what? Yes, it’s our President and those silly pro-lifers who are afraid. They’re afraid of advancements in medicine - always choosing ideology over science.

Remember, this is not a new issue. It wasn’t until 1993 that federal funding was available for stem cell research. In 1994, President Clinton signed an executive order that stopped federally funded research on human embryos. Where was Kerry’s call for Clinton to stop putting ideology before science?

From 1996 – 2000, Clinton’s federal budgets prohibited federal funding of "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." In 2000, President Bush is elected, and the policy remains the same. You would think it wouldn’t be an issue.

But President Regan died, giving Kerry an opportunity to either be quiet or politicize it. Even Kerry can’t get politicizing the event right. He misinforms voters further by claiming that President Bush has enacted a ban on stem cell research. Not true. In fact, much is going on in the private sector. But that’s not good enough for John Kerry. Research has to come from tax dollars, even tax dollars of pro-lifers and those who oppose the process. And also, there’s the little problem of the private sector. If Kerry informed all of us, it might sound like the private sector was actually doing some good.

Take this statement for example: "People of goodwill and good sense can resolve the ethical issues without stopping lifesaving research."

Translated: “This issue will be resolved by scientists and will be paid for with your tax dollars. If you oppose this, you have no goodwill and no good sense.”

If Kerry is elected, and if he does lift the ban to fund embryonic research, he will be expected to live up to his former hope that “…illnesses…. could be cured or treated with stem-cell therapy.” Two things are likely to occur (more likely than stem cells curing Alzheimer’s): a) Kerry was wrong and the research produces no such promises or b) Kerry was right and we have new cures for such major illnesses.

We’re pulling for scenario a.

Back