July 2, 2004
I strongly disagree with President Bush's decision to discourage research on embryonic stem cells. Oh, he compromised after a fashion by allowing limited use of existing colonies but overall the Federal Government is out of the picture, along with its billions of dollars of funding. In an unusual and alarming shift, foreign research institutes, especially in England, are vigorously recruiting U.S. scientists, and some are moving overseas to continue their work.
I believe strongly that there should be clear ethical guidelines in scientific research. But when a hugely promising field of research is summarily dismissed for simplistic religious reasons I have to worry that we have gone too far in the wrong direction.
It's worth asking some of the Christian right who apparently support Bush's stance what they would do if their child became paralyzed as the result of an accident and only embryonic stem cells could cure them. Would they condemn their child to a lifetime of suffering for the sake of their "moral" beliefs? Would some of the anti-stem cell commentators who write for the conservative Weekly Standard magazine have the courage to walk into a room full of quadriplegic patients and inform them that because of fundamentalist Christian beliefs, these people would not be cured? Would they treat their Alzheimer-stricken parent similarly?
I suspect that Mr. Bush will not change his mind even if his fundamentalist views cost him reelection; whatever one may think of him, he lives by his convictions. However, I believe that his views are not those of the mainstream American public, which is still relatively openminded about scientific research at least as it affects the quality of their lives. Unfortunately, the American public does not seem to support the kind of long term, basic research that is needed to sustain American leadership in the sciences.
If I were in charge, I would allocate approximately $500 billion a year to scientific research. Probably the U.S. government spends less than 20% of that figure today, including military R&D. Spending the money on improving the welfare of poor citizens is a mere palliative and not likely to lead to economic growth, and spending it on military adventures abroad is of limited value compared to the power and wealth that are the potential fruits of research and development. Creating and sustaining a solid scientific infrastructure with generous and complete funding and encouraging better science education in K-12 schools are the tickets to prosperity.
The promise of stem cells in alleviating senility in mice makes me think that people should specify in their living wills that they are willing to be subjects of such neurological experimentation. Were I to contract Alzheimer's disease and become a useless burden to my family and society, I would gladly submit to such a procedure even if it had only a tiny chance of restoring my brain to a youthful state. It is something to live for.
Home
Number of times this page has been accessed:
Last updated: July 2, 2004