It turns out Bush is the first president under whom any funding has gone to stem cell research, but Clinton, not Bush, was the first president to endorse funding. The first grant applications to the NIH for embryonic stem cell research were submitted under a technicality of the then-active ban on government funding for any research which results in the destruction of an embryo. The NIH offered grants as long as all work with embryos was done using only private funds.
Legislation regarding the killing of embryos was enacted soon after Row v. Wade, so government research funding for production of stem cell lines never happened. From a legal standpoint, this is an important precedent. Also important is that these laws have never been outright bans, but merely refusals of government funds.
Due to the necessity of human eggs for embryonic stem cell research, the primary motivation for this ban was the fear that human eggs would become commoditized. Examples of potentially unethical resulting scenarios include women in financially desperate situations trading eggs for cash.
This information was taken from the following sources, all three of which provide good insight into the legislative history of the issue.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/archive/crs_stem_cell.shtml
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/dispatches/050413.html
http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v9/n11/full/3301744a.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I thought since this is more of a political thread that I would talk briefly about what the Senate and House of Representatives think about the stem cell issue. Currently slightly over half of the Senate believes that federal founding should be directed towards creating new stem cell lines. Approximately half of the House of Representatives also believe this. Of the elected officials who do not actively support the allocation of more funds for stem cell research it is difficult to tell whether those officials are merely supporting their President’s views or are operating on their own fundamental beliefs.
I also want to note that in August of 2001, when Bush declared that no federal funds were to be used to create new stem cell lines, that much of the scientific community was surprised that Bush did not completely veto all funds for stem cell research.
Assuming the President's personal beliefs support Stem Cell Research:
The easiest thing for anyone to do, but especially a politician, is to not take a public stance in this debate.
By doing what he did, Bush relinquished the responsibility of being called a "baby-killer." He doesn't want anybody to think that the government of the United States is in the business of killing babies. Not only would those opposed to embryonic stem cell research be outraged, but all those who are unknowledgable would be influenced. Think of the completely negative PR and media that would come with something like that.
The problem is that as long as stem cells remain an ethical debate, the president is safe. Why? Because he/she can ignore it, relaying the final judgement and impossible responsibility of a decision to the next president. Democracies work because politicians stay in power only as long as the people agree with them. Thus, even if his/her personal beliefs support embryonic stem cell research, it is much safer for a president to either ban it (for in that case, how can he be blamed?) or, in effect, stall.
It would take an immensely opinionated president who cares more about this topic than the ratings to have a plausible scenario where embryonic stem cell research could be federally funded (which basically means it might never be so).
Of course, if a president is morally against stem cell research and he/she refused federal funding for that reason, that's not hypocritical. Unfortunately, it is impossible to tell the difference between the hypocrites and the honest ones.
Post a Comment