Science Backs Bush on Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Friday, November 23, 2007 at 01:45PM Whether science needed embryos for stem cell research to fight Parkinson and other diseases was a hot debate issue during the 2006 midterm elections. President Bush and most Republicans consider it a “life” issue, saying destroying an embryo even for medical/scientific purposes is tantamount to destroying human life and that adult stem cell research provided more benefits than embryonic. Democrats accused Bush of putting political ideology before helping the sick and suffering. Remember this ad with Michael J. Fox?
Well, as we knew all along, Bush and conservatives were right. Now we have the data to back it up. In the journals Science and Cell, scientists reported that they had coaxed regular human cells into mimicking the disease-fighting potential of embryonic stem cells - without destroying budding human life.
It wasn’t Bush or pro-lifers who put ideology or politics above humanity, it was the disingenuous pro-choicers and gullible fence sitters who forewent common sense for the instant gratification of a false compassion. Should we demand a recount or impeachment?
PREVIOUS POSTS:
What Missouri's Amendment 2 is Really Saying
Liberal Infallibility Invoked Against Rush Limbaugh (Michael J. Fox vs. Rush Limbaugh)
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1386903
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (8)
Did ya know that scientists have now created human stem cells without an embryo?
O apologize Amy, I had missed the small print and didn't realize that you were in fact, referring to that story.
Hmm, maybe my title could have been clearer.
Democrats pounded Bush over embryonic stem cell research saying he was inhuman to not allow the destruction of embryos for the sake of research for a cure to cerebal palsy, Parkinsons and other diseases. Bush (and the rest of us who are pro-life) were right; you don't need embryos to find a cure for those diseases; human stem cells from adults work.
Giving Bush credit for this is kinda like giving gravity credit for advancements in aeronautics.
Jesse, I'm not giving Bush credit for the science but for sticking to a moral principle that is backed up by medicine and science. It's vindicating and will save the lives of unborn in the future.
What Bush should get credit for is providing funding for research related to stem cells that has no moral dilemmas. He poured lots of money into the NIH to develop alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. This discovery comes from the environment he fostered.
What I really have a problem with is how his opponents took what is a fairly moderate position, twisted it, and made HIS seem like it was the extreme one. There is nothing extreme with saying no to public funding of research that a large percentage of the population finds objectionable. People claimed he was against stem cell research altogether or against embryonic stem cell research. They never gave the nuance of his position the proper explanation. That is what I find objectionable. Here is how I wrote about the matter...
www.proprietornation.blogspot.com/2007/11/if-embryonic-stem-cell-research-is-so.html
Repost from previous item:
Rush is on point, even though I have no problem with embryonic cell research. It's all gooey and mystical to imagine that every one of the hundreds of thousands of unneeded frozen embryos due to be flushed each year has "human rights", but it's quite laughable functionally. Charge the flushers with murder if you want to be consistent.
Anyhoooo, the new source of pluripotent stem cells is far more accessible, flexible and readily matched to patients -- and cheaper.
No totipotent cells yet, but if the pluripotent cells can be dialed back one more step, that's what you'll have. Then, guess what? Totipotent cells can become new embryos, and cloning is on again, for fun and profit! Wheeeee!
November 29, 200
Amy -- slight correction to your comment. It's not adult stem cells they start with. It's just ordinary run-of-the-mill skin cells. There are genetic switches that keep all but the specialized genes out of play, and when they are flipped off, the genes turn back on, and voilà, instant pluripotent cell (which is not necessarily a stem cell per se, though it "mimics" one). The problem with the original adult stem cell research was the immense difficulty of isolating and cultivating them. With the new system, they're available almost en masse (or will be with improvements to the efficiency of the conversion process).
I have a dog in this fight, btw, in a way. A brother has an incurable and untreatable genetic disorder known as CMT, in which the peripheral nerves gradually fail, the patient becomes immobilized, and eventually dies. Stem cells tuned to replace the nerves and their myelization "caregiver" cells would probably reverse the condition. I suspect he has about 5-8 years he can hang on, and this development gives at least some hope of treatment arriving in time.