Several media outlets recently published editorials and opinion pieces responding to President Obama's executive order on Monday that lifted some federal restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, as well as his directive to "guarantee scientific integrity" in federal policymaking. Summaries appear below.
~ William Saletan, Slate: According to Saletan, "The best way to understand" the issue of embryonic stem cell research is "to look at an issue that has become the mirror image of the stem cell fight. That issue is torture." He writes that after Obama "signed an executive order prohibiting interrogation methods used by the Bush administration," former Bush aide Karl Rove "accused Obama of endangering the country by impeding interrogations of the enemy." He continues that most people "believe, as Obama does, that it's possible to save lives without crossing a moral line that might corrupt us" and that the "same Bush-Rove tactics are being used today in the stem-cell fight." According to Saletan, "Proponents of embryo research are insisting that because we're in a life-and-death struggle ... anyone who impedes that struggle by renouncing effective tools is irrational and irresponsible." He writes that proponents are "parroting" the Obama administration's "spin" on the scientific integrity directive, adding, "Think about what's being dismissed here as 'politics' and 'ideology.'" He continues that it is not necessary to see embryos as equal to full-grown human beings to "appreciate the danger of exploiting them" and suggests to "try shifting the context from stem cells to torture." Saletan asks, "How much ruthless violence should we use to defeat ruthless violence? The paradox and the dilemma are easy to recognize." He adds that proponents of stem cell research have made the dilemma "more compelling" by asking opponents, "How precious is that little embryo? Precious enough to forswear research that might save the life of a 50-year-old man?" He continues, "The danger of seeing the stem cell war as a contest between science and ideology is that you bury these dilemmas." Saletan writes, "The stem cell fight wasn't a fight between ideology and science. It was a fight between five-day-olds and 50-year-olds. The 50-year-olds won." He concludes, "The question now is what to do with our five-day-olds, our 5-week-olds, and our increasingly useful parts" (Saletan, Slate, 3/9).
~ Kathleen Parker, Washington Post: Parker, a syndicated columnist, writes that "since Obama began running for president, researchers have made some rather amazing strides in alternative stem cell research. Science and ethics finally fell in love, in other words, and Obama seems to have fallen asleep during the kiss." She adds, "Either that, or he decided that keeping an old political promise was more important than acknowledging new developments." She continues that while a majority of Americans support embryonic stem cell research, "most Americans, including most journalists and politicians, aren't fluent in stem cell research. It's complicated." She explains that what people claim to "know" is that "embryonic stem cells can cure diseases and that all stem cells come from fertility clinic embryos that will be discarded anyway." However, "Neither belief is entirely true." According to Parker, "[E]very single one of the successes in treating patients with stem cells thus far -- for spinal cord injuries and multiple sclerosis, for example -- have involved adult or umbilical cord blood stem cells, not embryonic stem cells." She says that under Obama's executive order, taxpayers are "incentivizing a market for embryo creation and destruction." The "superior claim" that embryonic stem cells were necessary because they are pluripotent -- that is, capable of becoming any type of cell -- "no longer can be made" because of the introduction of induced pluripotent cells, or IPS cells, Parker writes. She continues, "One may agree or disagree with their purposes, but one may also question why taxpayers should have to fund something so ethically charged when alternative methods are available." Parker says, "The objectification of human life is never a trivial matter. And determining what role government plays in that objectification may be the ethical dilemma of the century." She concludes, "In this case, science handed Obama a gift -- and he sent it back" (Parker, Washington Post, 3/11).
~ San Francisco Chronicle: According to the Chronicle editorial, the "era of stem cells has officially begun," although "it could have started eight years ago, when then-President Bush had the opportunity to approve federal funding for new embryonic stem cell research." The editorial continues that Obama's decision to rescind Bush's executive order means that "scientists will have the ability to make choices based on science." According to the Chronicle, "California may profit handsomely from the new order," because of the 2004 approval of Proposition 71, which dedicated $3 billion in bonds to stem cell research. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine then "negotiated a groundbreaking set of policies to share the profits from any successful therapies with the state," the editorial says. It adds, "When federal money starts flowing into California for stem cell research -- which it will -- California taxpayers will still benefit from those profit sharing policies" (San Francisco Chronicle, 3/10).
~Philadelphia Inquirer: Obama took "a welcome step toward restoring the rightful place of scientific research in guiding public policy" by reversing the Bush administration's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, an Inquirer editorial says. It continues that although some people oppose the research because days-old embryos are used to create new stem cell lines, University of Pennsylvania medical ethicist Arthur Caplan has noted that nearly all of the approximately 600,000 embryos in storage in the U.S. eventually would be destroyed, regardless. The editorial says, "It would be a lost opportunity for the rest of humankind not to use the embryos that would otherwise be destroyed to save lives," adding that although the field of adult stem cells "holds promise, many scientists agree that research should occur using both strategies." Not doing so would "shut off a field of vast potential without knowing the possible results," according to the editorial, which concludes, "Obama's directive helps to separate ideology from scientific inquiry" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/10).
~ Los Angeles Times: "The executive order that Obama signed Monday will open the door to studies on hundreds of newer and more useful stem cell lines," a Times editorial says. It adds, "Stem cell research is a long-term endeavor that should not be subject to the whims of successive administrations." Obama should urge Congress to repeal the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, as "[f]ederal legislation is needed to secure the future" of stem cell research, the editorial says. According to the editorial, "The presidential order is already a boon to California's initiative; now researchers can use federally funded labs and equipment for their state funded research, instead of being forced to duplicate facilities." It concludes, "With established infrastructure and the prospect of future state funding to keep research going, there is no better place for the federal government to invest in embryonic stem cell work" (Los Angeles Times, 3/10).
Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий