2008 Woodie Awards
Public Funding Favors Adult Stem Cell Research
Joseph Records
Issue date: 5/10/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Allow me to begin by sharing my view on life: it begins at conception, and it is more sacred than privacy. Now please read on while I share how that view relates to the debate on embryonic stem cell research: it doesn't. Yes, it's an abomination to kill unborn children, but there are plenty of good reasons not to have embryonic stem cell research other than that whole "murder is bad" thing.
Pro-life and pro-choice are generally inappropriate positions when facing the stem cell question. The issue is not whether we should do the research, as most people prefer to ask. At contention here is the matter of whether to use adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells to do it.
Adult stem cell research has gone further and been more successful than embryonic, and is essentially unopposed on moral grounds. Embryonic stem cell research is held up by protests and political maneuvering, costs more, and is already way behind in terms of practical applications. If you're wondering why there is even a debate on this, you're not alone.
The General Assembly of Maryland, in its usual dubious wisdom, introduced a bill mandating that the state spend $25 million for embryonic stem cell research, and our sometimes-Republican governor was okay with it.
Apparently I missed the memo. There must be some unbelievable surplus in state money so that we can blow that kind of cash on research that will be redundantly and impossibly trying to catch up with the progress that is already being made in adult stem cell research.
Senator Paula Hollinger, better known for her work in Lucky Charms commercials, but also the chair of Maryland's Senate Education and Environmental Matters Committee and the sponsor of the legislation in question, called the bill about "saving lives." Apparently she is of the mindset that you have to end some lives in order to save others. I mentioned earlier that there is nothing that embryonic stem cells can do that adult stem cells can't, but that may have been slightly inaccurate.
Pro-life and pro-choice are generally inappropriate positions when facing the stem cell question. The issue is not whether we should do the research, as most people prefer to ask. At contention here is the matter of whether to use adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells to do it.
Adult stem cell research has gone further and been more successful than embryonic, and is essentially unopposed on moral grounds. Embryonic stem cell research is held up by protests and political maneuvering, costs more, and is already way behind in terms of practical applications. If you're wondering why there is even a debate on this, you're not alone.
The General Assembly of Maryland, in its usual dubious wisdom, introduced a bill mandating that the state spend $25 million for embryonic stem cell research, and our sometimes-Republican governor was okay with it.
Apparently I missed the memo. There must be some unbelievable surplus in state money so that we can blow that kind of cash on research that will be redundantly and impossibly trying to catch up with the progress that is already being made in adult stem cell research.
Senator Paula Hollinger, better known for her work in Lucky Charms commercials, but also the chair of Maryland's Senate Education and Environmental Matters Committee and the sponsor of the legislation in question, called the bill about "saving lives." Apparently she is of the mindset that you have to end some lives in order to save others. I mentioned earlier that there is nothing that embryonic stem cells can do that adult stem cells can't, but that may have been slightly inaccurate.
Be the first to comment on this story