|
the Stem Cell Page time and ignorance are the enemies |
|
Embryos, lies and videotape |
|
April 1, 2006
I am all for respectful debate. It is a time honored tradition in American politics. Fact-based discussions help us to decipher issues and crystallize our expressions. When it comes to stem cell research, I have engaged in numerous healthy exchanges of ideas and philosophies. But when facts take a back seat to falsehood our system of respectful debate degrades and benefits of free expression are negated. Sadly, such is the case with Missouri Right to Life.
One of our readers tipped me off that their web site published a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. I was disheartened to read this group’s false charge that the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative petitions would create a constitutional amendment to authorize “taxpayer dollars” for stem cell research. Our reader emailed the group and asked them to identify where in the petitions such authorization exists and exactly how much money it authorized. There was no reply.*
The reason is simple enough. It’s just not true.
On one hand, telling lies will eventually catch up with them and serve to convert some opponents of the initiative to supporters (thank you very much). But on the other hand, some may never know the truth and be swayed to vote on the basis of misinformation, or what the Bush administration calls “bad intel.” And as the Republican Party is now painfully aware, bad intel can be the root of one’s undoing.
Some, however, are more subtle. They tell half lies - a small slice of fact taken out of context. Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women of America, was caught on video speaking to Missouri Right to Life claiming that adult stem cells have had proven results while embryonic stem cells have yet to cure a single human disease, a common talking point among initiative opponents. But what Wright omits is just as important as what she states.
Adult stem cells were first isolated in the 1950’s. That’s right, when Eisenhower was President. By the late 1960’s, adult stem cell treatments had been vetted through trials on animals and were finally ready for clinical trials on humans. This process takes a while, but for the sake of patient safety it’s quite necessary.
By comparison, human embryonic stem cells were not isolated until 1998 and are still in trials on animals. Just like the long process applied to adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells are also required to be vetted for safety. It won’t be until a year or two from now that the first applications for human clinical trials will be submitted.
The key difference so far is that embryonic stem cell research on animals has demonstrated far greater results than ever dreamed with adult stem cells. The monkey equivalent of Parkinson’s disease has been cured. Spinal cord injuries have been repaired in mice. The rodent surrogate of Multiple Sclerosis has been ameliorated. Positive results abound in broad array.
To be clear, I do not advocate replacing adult stem cell research with embryonic stem cell research. I’m an “equal opportunity” stem cell supporter. All varieties should be vigorously pursued.
Meanwhile, we (the public) must strongly object to misinformation, lies and half truths – the contagious diseases that attack and debilitate our electorate’s nervous system and diminish capacity for informed conclusions.
- Jeff Eisen
*Update - April 10, 2006
A reply finally did arrive from Missouri right to Life. Their remarks were completely false. Here’s what they wrote: “In section 5 of the initiative petition it says that if an institution is eligible for state funds, there cannot be written into the funding program a prohibition against using the state funds for cloning.” Section 5 of the Initiative says no such thing.
Section 5 simply prohibits government officials from using some backdoor mechanism to try to halt or inhibit lawful stem cell research and cures. It prevents “punitive” measures from being taken against institutions that happen to also perform stem cell research. For instance, Missouri officials would be prohibited from arbitrarily withholding funds that an institution would normally be eligible to receive (such as Medicaid reimbursement), as a way of "punishing" them for conducting legal stem cell research or providing stem cell cures. You can read the entire text of Section 5 for yourself below:
5. To ensure that no governmental body or official arbitrarily restricts funds designated for purposes other than stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures as a means of inhibiting lawful stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures, no state or local governmental body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny, or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that (i) lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures, allows for such research or therapies and cures to be conducted or provided on its premises, or is otherwise associated with such research or therapies and cures, but (ii) receives or is eligible to receive such public funds for purposes other than such stem cell-related activities, on account of, or otherwise for the purpose of creating disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with, or preventing, restricting, obstructing, or discouraging, such stem cell-related activities. —— To be notified by email of new editorials, CLICK HERE —— |
|
To contact us: Click Here |