COLUMN: Legislators, stay out of the Petri dish
The Georgia Republican Party is about to decide its image for the foreseeable future. Last Thursday, the Georgia Senate passed SB 169, the anti-stem cell research bill that would ban therapeutic cloning in embryonic stem cell research.
The original legislation was introduced by Sen. Ralph Hudgens of the 47th District (which overlaps part of Jackson County) as a bill to control the number of in vitro fertilizations to prevent another “octomom.”
But on the heels of President Obama’s lifting of the federal restrictions on funding embryonic stem cell research, Sen. Hudgens’ bill was changed in committee to limit certain kinds of embryonic stem cell research in the state.
The matter is now in the state House, where representatives are faced with a hot political choice.
One the one side is the “pro-life” lobby, which has now embraced anti-embryonic stem cell research as another plank in its anti-abortion agenda. In fact, Sen. Hudgens’ original legislation to stop “octomoms” had said an “in vitro human embryo is a biological human being.”
This faction of the Republican Party, often part-and-parcel of the religious right, is vocal in its agenda. It frames its stand as “morals and values,” a rubbery target that legislators are loathe to be seen opposing, even if they don’t really support a particular piece of legislation.
But another strong faction of the Republican Party also has an interest in this legislation. The business community — chambers of commerce, university researchers and other pro-business groups — are in strong opposition to SB 169. They fear passage of the bill would frame Georgia as an anti-science, anti-research state and hurt the state’s small, but growing, bioscience industry.
So Republican House members are caught between these two strong factions on a very public and very emotional issue.
You have to wonder, however, why the Georgia Legislature is even taking up this issue in the middle of an economic downturn that is slamming state revenues and creating a host of major problems for Georgia officials.
My view is that while there may be a need for broad parameters regarding certain kinds of medical research, this legislation isn’t it. I say that based on three things:
1. A clump of cells sitting in a Petri dish is not a human being. No amount of religious argument or legislative fiat will ever convince me otherwise.
2. Scientific inquiry is an unstoppable force that will never be completely contained by religious or legal systems. If not in Georgia, then embryonic stem cell research will take place somewhere else, either in another state or another country. The Catholic Church made Galileo stop talking about the Earth revolving around the Sun in the 1600s, but that didn’t kill the science of astronomy or the fact that he was right and the church was wrong. The scientific imperative cannot be fenced.
3. I have more than a passing interest in medical research into stem cells; my youngest son might someday benefit medically from this kind of research. It’s easy to moralize against embryonic stem cell research in the abstract, but to those who are directly affected, the ethical arguments are a lot less black-and-white.
That view notwithstanding, the Georgia House should table this legislation and focus on more pressing matters. Time will tell if Georgia has any problematic ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem cell research that require legislative intervention.
Until then, legislators should stay out of the Petri dish.
Mike Buffington is editor of The Jackson Herald. He can be reached at mike@mainstreetnews.com.
But on the heels of President Obama’s lifting of the federal restrictions on funding embryonic stem cell research, Sen. Hudgens’ bill was changed in committee to limit certain kinds of embryonic stem cell research in the state.
The matter is now in the state House, where representatives are faced with a hot political choice.
One the one side is the “pro-life” lobby, which has now embraced anti-embryonic stem cell research as another plank in its anti-abortion agenda. In fact, Sen. Hudgens’ original legislation to stop “octomoms” had said an “in vitro human embryo is a biological human being.”
This faction of the Republican Party, often part-and-parcel of the religious right, is vocal in its agenda. It frames its stand as “morals and values,” a rubbery target that legislators are loathe to be seen opposing, even if they don’t really support a particular piece of legislation.
But another strong faction of the Republican Party also has an interest in this legislation. The business community — chambers of commerce, university researchers and other pro-business groups — are in strong opposition to SB 169. They fear passage of the bill would frame Georgia as an anti-science, anti-research state and hurt the state’s small, but growing, bioscience industry.
So Republican House members are caught between these two strong factions on a very public and very emotional issue.
You have to wonder, however, why the Georgia Legislature is even taking up this issue in the middle of an economic downturn that is slamming state revenues and creating a host of major problems for Georgia officials.
My view is that while there may be a need for broad parameters regarding certain kinds of medical research, this legislation isn’t it. I say that based on three things:
1. A clump of cells sitting in a Petri dish is not a human being. No amount of religious argument or legislative fiat will ever convince me otherwise.
2. Scientific inquiry is an unstoppable force that will never be completely contained by religious or legal systems. If not in Georgia, then embryonic stem cell research will take place somewhere else, either in another state or another country. The Catholic Church made Galileo stop talking about the Earth revolving around the Sun in the 1600s, but that didn’t kill the science of astronomy or the fact that he was right and the church was wrong. The scientific imperative cannot be fenced.
3. I have more than a passing interest in medical research into stem cells; my youngest son might someday benefit medically from this kind of research. It’s easy to moralize against embryonic stem cell research in the abstract, but to those who are directly affected, the ethical arguments are a lot less black-and-white.
That view notwithstanding, the Georgia House should table this legislation and focus on more pressing matters. Time will tell if Georgia has any problematic ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem cell research that require legislative intervention.
Until then, legislators should stay out of the Petri dish.
Mike Buffington is editor of The Jackson Herald. He can be reached at mike@mainstreetnews.com.
Defined tags for this entry: MIKE
party cares more about "people" when they are in the womb
or a petri dish than while walking on this earth.
There is actual tangible, quantifiable evidence behind scientific knowledge (that's why it's called knowledge). God and the Bible are a faith based belief system. (That means you just have faith and believe, without actual tangible, quantifiable evidence of what you believe.)
You define "human being" for me, without using YOUR faith based belief system to do it, and maybe I can tell you at what point a clump of cells becomes one. (And don't run to Merriam Webster, you won't like her definition.)
Aw, now you hate me don't you?
Let's try again. At what point in the process did I stop being just a clump of cells and become a human being? After all, technically, I'm just an old, dumb, bigger clump of cells right now. (I have a suspicion that you agree. :-))
About 6-7 years ago, I heard a professor at Cal-Berkley lecture on consciousness. He commented that science did not currently have the means of measuring when consciousness begins in humans. (I apologize for not providing the source. It was on one of the nerd channels on Dish Network, and unfortunately, I didn't tape it.) This changed my perspective on the whole debate. I'm not sure the question of when life begins CAN be answered by science.
And thank you for helping me make my point. Nobody knows the answer to your question, although I suspect that because "just curious" asked that pointed question about God, he or she thinks they know the answer. I wholeheartedly support someone's right to hold faith based beliefs, it's good for a lot of folks, I just think it important to know where to draw the line, and that not every issue comes down to whether or not one believes in God (unless, of course, you believe in God)..... We seem to end up on that subject in every blog about any story on this website.
And now we will hear from "just curious"......
For an interesting debate on this, see the following article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-02/an-ethical-non-quandary/
I'm not sure your argument that "they're going to be destroyed anyway, so we might as well use them." is sound. It's too similar to "we're going to execute him anyway" or "she's mentally handicapped and won't know what's going on" so "let's perform some experiments on them".
I do realize that for me this is more of an intellectual exercise (although I do feel an ethical responsibility as a citizen in our society). For you, the matter is much more personal. Please forgive me if I haven't been sensitive enough to your situation.
Not implanting it in the womb could be considered child abuse. Unless kept frozen) The intentional killing of humans is (or at least it used to be) called murder. To experiment on them before killing them is torture. I don't see what is so hard to understand. There is no justification for this unethical behavior.
We used to think killing fetuses was ok until ultrasounds revealed the suffering of the baby, I mean fetus being aborted. The size of an organism changes nothing. Bacteria are alive and we routinely find it necessary to kill them. Just because they are small doesn't make them less real.
Other forms of stem cell research have shown promise without destroying embryos, I mean babies, i.e. umbilical stem cells. (The stem cell-rich umblical cord is routinely thrown in the trash after each birth!)
We must be consistent in our definitions. When does life begin? Embryonic stage, fetal stage or some would say age 40? We must be careful playing God. We are not playing checkers. What we decide is acceptable today, is being observed, and learned by the young folks. There is less respect for life because abortion is legal. How do we jusify our behavior? Why don't we just force the less fortunate to donate body parts for those of us who need them? This is a good purpose.
The size and situation of an organism does change the debate. One can support embryonic stem cell research without lessening the respect for human life. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The world is not back or white — there are many shades of gray around which people have different views. This is one of those issues.
Most scientists, studies have shown, don't believe in God which makes these decisions easier for them to make.
Murder is only murder when one is charged and convicted. And so I would agree that researchers are not, technically speaking, murderers. There is an organization that implants surplus embryos into women. It may have the same net result but is more palatable. Some researchers have used human stem cells in rats' brains. I would like to see more ehical behavior mandated for our scientists.
Dr. Mengele, the Auschwitz doctor of death had very similar lines of thought to our modern researchers. Some of this stuff could be considered downright evil.
We need research but not at any cost. Human life should be respected. We are all created equal.
What if there is a cure for cancer to be found there? Or autism? Or epilepsy? Or Myocardial Infarction? What great good is being done by not using these cells for research?
While I don't know where you got your information about scientists not believing in God, I'll accept that it's true. I submit to you that that is because they have seen the SCIENCE behind life and they don't NEED to believe in God.
Whether one believes in God or not is still a personal choice. What's a given for you is not a given for someone else.
I said some of the scientific practices are evil or unethical. This is a discussion, not an inquisition.
Have a nice day Kathy.
Also, you might want to look up the word "inquisition" before you throw it out there because it appears you think it means something that it does not.
And if it makes you feel better to attempt to belittle me....go for it (but it won't work).
Peace out.