Mitt Romney's Stem Cell Politics
Governor Mitt Romney, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, has a piece in today's NRO promoting "alternatives" to embryonic stem cell research. Skipping over his partisan arguments, here is the crux of his column:
I studied the issue for many months, and entered into conversation with experts from across the nation who were looking for consensus solutions, like Stanford's Dr. William Hurlbut. In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise, and that the way through it was around it: by the use of scientific techniques that could produce the equivalent of embryonic stem cells but without cloning, creating, harming, or destroying developing human lives. A number of such techniques have begun to emerge in recent years, and as last week's exciting scientific publications showed, some of the world's best stem-cell scientists are hard at work bringing them to fruition. Moreover, two of these techniques, Altered Nuclear Transfer and Direct Reprogramming could produce patient-specific stem-cell lines for the study of diseases.Pluripotency as a gold standard of stem cell research remains to be demonstrated. But Romney is right that whatever one might think of federal funding for ESCR or the ethical propriety of human cloning, there is no reason not to back research into alternatives. After all, it would increase knowledge while avoiding the ethical contention that has marked the ESCR debate.
Our government should encourage and support these scientific developments, rather than undermine the effort to find a solution. Finding cures to diseases using methods that uphold ethical principles and sustain social consensus should be the objective of America's approach to stem-cell research...Support for ethical biomedical research should be part of our collective identity as a noble society. Instead of turning the quest for cures into a partisan battle, Congress should embrace the exciting emerging lines of research that could meet the goals of all sides in the stem-cell debate.
Labels: Governor Mitt Romney. Alternative Stem Cell Research
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:24 AM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
there is no reason not to back research into alternatives.
I can think of some:
1. The money should be spent on basic health care. There is a finite amount of money, and there are people right now that can't afford to get a tooth pulled or see a doctor or get medicine.
2. The research consumes tons of energy and contributes tons of greenhouse gasses. Too many researchers drive 20 miles to work everyday. We don't need to strain our environment by maximizing that number, perhaps greater good would come from minimizing it.
3. The research could lead to genetic engineering of people. Altered Nuclear Transfer sounds a lot like genetic engineering to me. I know the idea is to mess up the genes enough so that it cannot become a viable embryo, but to hear Mitt Romney all gung ho for it makes me wonder it he sees it more grandly. His favorite book is Battlefield Earth, he's never stated if he is a Mormon Transhumanist or not, and he ignored all my letters telling him not to allow same-sex conception.
4. This sort of research trivializes health, making us seem like robots that only need proper programming, instead of living beings that need care.
Quite a stretch, John: Green house gases? The research in labs hardly consumes tons of energy and people are going to drive to work any way. ANT is not genetic engineering and the research would be done in animals now. I stay out of partisan politics and religion, but Romney hardly seems a transhumanist. One huge point would be to find ways to treat people, although as I said in the post, I am coming to the conclusion as a non scientist that pluripotency may be overrated as a matter of great urgency for therapies.
As to the $: I think we should have a democratic debate across the board on how we can triage government to keep spending in line--particularly if we move in the direction of some form of universal coverage. But that is a discussion for another day.
Yes, greenhouse gasses. Sure, most researchers would find some other job, but many would not, and perhaps they'd take a closer job. And one that doesn't use so much lab equipment. I'd love to see the electric bill at Novartis. It's a legitimate reason, you can say it's not a good enough reason, but you can't say it isn't isn't a reason.
I dont know what ANT is precisely, but the term "Altered Nuclear Transfer" sounds like it could mean "Altered Nuclear Transfer", aka, engineering changes in genes and putting them in an egg and developing an embryo. How is that ever a good thing?
Romney has never said he isn't a Transhumanist, and all we know is that he's gung ho for strange weird research, loves science fiction, and is a Mormon, which is described by the Mormon Transhumanist Association as being a natural fit for beliefs about Transhumanism. The way they describe it, you almost can't be a Mormon without desiring bioengineered humans as part of some prophesized destiny for mankind. I'd like to hear him say he's for the Egg and Sperm law, as I've prodded him to say, but he's never written me back or said anything publicly about it, so what should we believe?
The money is finite, what is spent on genetic research is not spent on, no matter how democratic the process is of dividing the pot. I vote zero for GE, all for basic care.
I haven't heard a single good argument for spending money and resources on genetic engineering at all, and the reasons to oppose it far outweigh the bad arguments I've heard.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home