The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Obama Reverses Bush Policy on Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Obama Reverses Bush Policy on Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

By W. James Antle, III on 3.9.09 @ 12:17PM

The Washington Post editorializes -- er, I mean reports -- that "Obama aims to shield science from politics." If that's so, why is Obama only lifting the restrictions on taxpayer-subsized human experimentation demanded by his political base? (Hat tip: Ramesh Ponnuru.) And why is this happening so soon after new breakthroughs in stem-cell research without the embryo destruction? Perhaps the Obama administration's science policy is not above politics.

UPDATE: The president's remarks before signing the executive order were classic Obama: thoughtful, respectful, and nuanced -- but ultimately what the rhetoric giveth, the substance taketh away. Consider:

It's a difficult and delicate balance. And many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. And I understand their concerns, and I believe that we must respect their point of view.

But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans -- from across the political spectrum, and from all backgrounds and beliefs -- have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.

That is a conclusion with which I agree.

But the "we" who should "pursue this research" is the American taxpayer. Obama wants to respect the viewpoints of people who oppose the deliberate destruction of human embryos. But not respect their point of view enough to avoid taking money from them by force for this purpose, even as other alternatives develop.

View all comments (14) | Leave a comment

Bob| 3.9.09 @ 4:39PM

Antle, how come I don't hear a cry from social conservatives against in vitro fertilization -- the process that destroys more embryos than any other? Furthermore, I don't believe there was a restriction on privately funded embryonic stem cell lines. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Anything to do with public funding is political by definition.

Interloper| 3.9.09 @ 5:23PM

The majority of taxpayers, 65 percent in a 2007 poll, support embryonic stem cell research. The majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. So, it seems to me that it is most columnists for American Spectator who contradict themselves, not President Obama. He at least considers minority viewpoints and treats them with respect. However, ultimately, the President must not defer to his loudest critics on the grounds that they are loudest or critics. He made the right decision.

Today's Gallup Poll also reveals that most Americans support the President's removal of Bush era limitations on government supported embryonic stem cell research. Less than 20 percent of the public is opposed to embryonic stem cell research. (A number I expect will decline as people learn the facts about the process.)

http://tinyurl.com/aqjpke

As for other forms of stem cell research, they may continue, though embryonic stem cells are still the most advanced of the options available.

Matt| 3.9.09 @ 6:02PM

Interloper, you are a liar. Adult stem cell research trials have been far more successful than embryonic stem cell trials. Not only are you a liberal whore, you are a lying liberal whore.

W. James Antle III| 3.9.09 @ 6:16PM

Bob, you don't listen very carefully if you've never heard social conservatives complain about in vitro fertilization. I wouldn't ban it, but I wouldn't mind seeing some changes in the norms of how the industry treats human embryos. But in vitro fertilization doesn't necessarily involve *deliberate* destruction of human embryos and doesn't involve the use of taxpayer funds.

Yes, privately funded embryonic stem-cell research was perfectly legal under the Bush policy, though most taxpayer funding of the practice was not. Under current law, privately funded abortion is perfectly legal but we prohibit most taxpayer funding of abortion. I don't think because social conservatives fail to overturn Roe v. Wade they are logically required to advocate repealing the Hyde Amendment.

Interloper, I don't doubt that most Americans favor embryonic stem-cell research. I do doubt that most of them understand it or what the Bush administration's policy was toward it, and I think there are good reasons to believe most polls on the subject aren't terribly useful. But I don't dispute that even an honest poll would show most people disagree with me on the issue.

Finally, I opposed the Iraq war and would like to see the taxpayers stop funding it as soon as possible. But I do think national defense is a legitimate function of government for which citizens can be compelled to pay. I don't think every form of medical research falls into this moral category.

Roy| 3.9.09 @ 8:42PM

"how come I don't hear a cry from social conservatives against in vitro fertilization"

Because no one who undergoes IVF does so with the intent of destroying those embryos. It is simply the nature of the human developmental process - not all fertilized embryos successfully implant, whether through IVF or through natural means.

The difference is that embryonic stem cell "research" will *ALWAYS* result in a death.

Angel| 3.9.09 @ 8:50PM

IVF is disgusting, too. Children are treated as a disposable product.

Thomas| 3.10.09 @ 6:22AM

Bob,

You don't hear a lot of things, given the media treatment of these subjects. Most of the conservatives with whom I am acquainted are not opposed to IVF in itself. They do object to the uncontrolled practice of IVF and to the laboratory "abortion" of these fetuses, however.

As to taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research, this is a sham. If there was a practical use in sight for embryonic stem cells, private funding would be streaming in, which it is not. Adult stem cell research, on the other hand, has yielded significant successes and is rather widely funded both privately and publicly. And stem cell harvesting need not require the destruction of the fetus. Placental blood had proven to contain a significant quantity of pluripotent stem cells.

The ethical problems that arise in the areas of embryonic stem cell harvesting are the same as those in organ harvesting. The aborting of life, or killing, of a human being, living or dead, to harvest human tissue for the purposes of treating disease in another human being should be morally repugnant. If we can kill a fetus to harvest embryonic stem cells, then what is to stop the slaughter of human beings outside the womb, particularly children, for the purpose of harvesting human organs? When it becomes acceptable to kill human beings, in the womb, for the sake of convenience, then where is the moral outrage at doing the same thing to ambulatory human beings for "the good of humanity" or even for profit? This type of behavior should not be encouraged, especially with money from a government and a people supposedly pledged to providing for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Bob| 3.10.09 @ 10:01AM

Thomas, IVF is a bit more complicated. IVF produces both viable and non-viable embryos no matter how it is done. There are also diseased embryos. There is no way you can do this process without destroying embryos. If you believe in life at conception, you cannot believe in IVF.

Regarding adult stem cell therapies, the only ones I know of are bone marrow therapies. The reason scientists back embryonic stem cell research is that they believe these cells can be used in different therapies. It is far more complicated than "adult" versus "embryonic".

But then again, social conservatives have not been known to actually research a specific subject matter, have they?

acheapmom| 3.10.09 @ 10:10AM

(Even as I write this, I see a stem cell ad talking about stem cells from baby teeth above this article...)

TEST your new PROSPECTIVE investment broker by asking him/her to research the stem cell treatment issue & report back to you in, say, a week. You want the most promising investment stem cell prospects.

If your broker comes back with some of the AMAZING treatments done at various quality adult stem cell clinics, he/she has done their research...

If your broker only offers up those companies that have suddenly jumped into the embryonic market---you know the broker is NOT a good researcher (OR is pushing a political agenda over good investment practice).

Research under "Adult Stem Cells" Adult stem cell treatments. Pair up Adult Stem Cell with almost any major disease. You will either come up with an actual treatment, or extremely promising research close to treatment stage.

(Or, you can be CONTENT with PRes. Obama's statement not to expect too much out of embryonic stem cell research right away.)

Bob| 3.10.09 @ 10:18AM

acheapmom, please research "penis size" and look at all of those treatments. Snake oil salesmen have been around for centuries. The only PROVEN therapies for adult stem cells have been related to bone marrow. Please do your homework so you can learn something.

Thomas| 3.12.09 @ 10:44AM

Bob,

Sorry to disappoint, but IUF [that is in utero fertilization, as I am sure you know] produces the same results as IVF. If a fetus is non-viable in either case, it is discarded. So what is the difference? That is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Actually, adult stem cell therapy seems to work for bone marrow deficiencies disorders such as SCID, various leukemias, and even Tay-Sachs and Parkenson's. These treatments are still in the development stage, as one would expect. Embryonic stem cell treatments have proven to be almost universally disappointing, though umbilical cord blood treatments of children shows excellent promise in certain childhood genetic disorders.

The basis for concern is not that embryonic stem cells may not be useful in treating human diseases, it is the method of collection that is at issue. GWB allowed the funding of existing lines of embryonic stem cells stipulating that no stem cells could be used which were harvested through the destruction of the fetus. So what is the basis for the demand for embryonic stem cell research funding? Money and justification for a practice that has long been looked down upon by the majority of the nation, abortion. If destroying embryos will save lives, then abortion supporters hope it will lead to justification of the practice. And, with a never ending supply of medical spare parts, then the suppliers [abortion clinics] are going to make windfall profits. You know finance. How does that sound to you?

ruth| 3.12.09 @ 2:24PM

These cells are already being added to 'age-defying' skin care cosmetics in many parts of the world. How unspeakably savage is that? I know there's a reckoning coming.

acheapmom| 4.28.09 @ 10:36AM

Notice how girls, young women would need to be "farmed:" i.e. injected with drugs (hormones I think) to produce many many more than the typical one egg a month. (the current elective procedure also for producing embryos).

Notice also how we not only need females as "farms" - we need (in the brave new world of feeding off the next generation) to cultivate the abortion of more of the next gen - if indeed this new Dr. Moreau nightmare tech also can feed off the aborted remains of the next gen.

This new technology needs a constant crop of girls, young women who (usually) do not even have the emotional and financial resources to choose life for their young!!!!!!!!!!

(Maybe that's why college women are the main abortion target---!)