A Plea for Common Sense
There has been much rhetoric on both sides of the amendment 2 issue. Proponents claim that embryonic stem cell research holds the key to cures for everything from athlete's foot to cancer. Oponents cite the fact that ESCR has never cured anything. Proponents claim that embryos aren't human beings. Oponents believe that life begins at conception.
Proponents of amendment 2 say it bans cloning. Oponents say it does just the opposite. While the amendment does prohibit cloning, it offers a definition of cloning that is different from the one normally accepted by the medical profession.
Most medical journals define SSCT as cloning. The amendment defines cloning as implanting an embryo in the womb.
Proponents call oponents religious crackpots and oponents call proponents mad scientists. In many cases there has been much more heat than light.
Suppose, for just a moment, we stand back and look at the big picture. What is the current situation and what will the situation be if amendment 2 passes of fails?
Current situation. Both adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell research are legal in the state of Missouri. ESCR receives no funds from Missouri taxpayers and limited funding from the federal government. The only research elegible for federal funds must be conducted on existing stem cell lines. Adult stem cell research is eligible for government funding.
Eggs are obtained from "left overs" harvested for in vitro fertilization by IVF clinics. Donors, unless they are hopeful mothers providing eggs for their own fertilization, are paid. Both types of stem cell research are subject to state and federal regulations, as are all other types of medical experimentation.
If amendment 2 fails. Nothing will change. Things will remain as they are. Research will continue.
If amendment 2 passes. The right to conduct ESCR will become part of our state constitution. Research will continue, but without government supervision. In fact, the amendment specifically removes all state control over this research and opens the door for state funding. Oversight of the industry would be done by an "institutional review board", with the state legislature specifically excluded. Guarantees are built into the amendment for egg harvesting and somatic stem cell transfer.
As mentioned, proponents of amendment 2 claim that ESCR has great potential, but because it's so new, and because government funding has been restricted, there is no way to know its full potential for good. That might be true.
On the other hand, there is also no way to know what harm it might cause. There is at least anectdotal evidence that these cells cause cancer. Since we don't know the truth, does it really make sense to make the right to conduct this research part of the state's constitution? There are no safeguards built into amendment 2 to prevent future abuse. Even if ESCR proves to be terribly harmful, the amendment makes it impossible for the state legislature to do anything to stop it.
There have been two recent cases, one widely publicized, one less so, where ESC researchers have falsified their results. In one, Dr. Hwang Woo Suk of South Korea falsified the results of his research claiming to have produced eleven stem cell lines that were genetically identical to patients with disease or spinal cord injury. Quoting US News & World Report, "Peer-reviewed research really rests on one fundamental principle, and that's that the people who do it are really honest about their results." Under amendment 2, peer review would be the ONLY control over ESCR.
The second and more recent case involved an American company. Advanced Cell Technology of Alameda, CA announced on August 23, that they had discovered a means of extracting stem cells without destroying the embryo. This "breakthrough" received national publicity. Unfortunately for ACT, it turns out that all of the embryos involved in the experiment died. This revelation received much less press coverage. (It's worth noting that prior to ACT's announcement, their stock was trading for less than 50 cents per share. Following the announcement, it rose to nearly $2.00 per share. After the deception was discovered, the stock returned to just over 50 cents. It's currently in the 80 to 90 cent range.)
Most Missourians question the moral and ethical implications of creating human life for the purpose of destroying it. That alone should cause them to vote "no". But for those who don't share that view, they should ask themselves the following questions:
Does unproven research, research that is already legal in Missouri, deserve constitutional protection?
Do we want this research to be conducted by an industry with a history of "exagerating" their results, with no government control?
The preamble to the amendment, which voters won't see on election day, lists 45 sections of the state constitution that might be changed, repealed, or modified by this amendment. What are these sections? How might they be affected?
Missouri is known as the Show-me State. Have we been shown that this amendment is needed, or even desirable? Is it good law?
Who stands to gain and who stands to lose if amendment 2 becomes law?
Why have supporters spent nearly $30 million to promote this amendment? Why have one husband and wife contributed the vast majority of that $30 million? What's in it for them?
If we can't answer these questions, regardless of our opinion concerning the beginning of life and human experimentation, then common sense says we should vote "No".
For more information, see What's Wrong with Amendment 2?
Proponents of amendment 2 say it bans cloning. Oponents say it does just the opposite. While the amendment does prohibit cloning, it offers a definition of cloning that is different from the one normally accepted by the medical profession.
Most medical journals define SSCT as cloning. The amendment defines cloning as implanting an embryo in the womb.
Proponents call oponents religious crackpots and oponents call proponents mad scientists. In many cases there has been much more heat than light.
Suppose, for just a moment, we stand back and look at the big picture. What is the current situation and what will the situation be if amendment 2 passes of fails?
Current situation. Both adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell research are legal in the state of Missouri. ESCR receives no funds from Missouri taxpayers and limited funding from the federal government. The only research elegible for federal funds must be conducted on existing stem cell lines. Adult stem cell research is eligible for government funding.
Eggs are obtained from "left overs" harvested for in vitro fertilization by IVF clinics. Donors, unless they are hopeful mothers providing eggs for their own fertilization, are paid. Both types of stem cell research are subject to state and federal regulations, as are all other types of medical experimentation.
If amendment 2 fails. Nothing will change. Things will remain as they are. Research will continue.
If amendment 2 passes. The right to conduct ESCR will become part of our state constitution. Research will continue, but without government supervision. In fact, the amendment specifically removes all state control over this research and opens the door for state funding. Oversight of the industry would be done by an "institutional review board", with the state legislature specifically excluded. Guarantees are built into the amendment for egg harvesting and somatic stem cell transfer.
As mentioned, proponents of amendment 2 claim that ESCR has great potential, but because it's so new, and because government funding has been restricted, there is no way to know its full potential for good. That might be true.
On the other hand, there is also no way to know what harm it might cause. There is at least anectdotal evidence that these cells cause cancer. Since we don't know the truth, does it really make sense to make the right to conduct this research part of the state's constitution? There are no safeguards built into amendment 2 to prevent future abuse. Even if ESCR proves to be terribly harmful, the amendment makes it impossible for the state legislature to do anything to stop it.
There have been two recent cases, one widely publicized, one less so, where ESC researchers have falsified their results. In one, Dr. Hwang Woo Suk of South Korea falsified the results of his research claiming to have produced eleven stem cell lines that were genetically identical to patients with disease or spinal cord injury. Quoting US News & World Report, "Peer-reviewed research really rests on one fundamental principle, and that's that the people who do it are really honest about their results." Under amendment 2, peer review would be the ONLY control over ESCR.
The second and more recent case involved an American company. Advanced Cell Technology of Alameda, CA announced on August 23, that they had discovered a means of extracting stem cells without destroying the embryo. This "breakthrough" received national publicity. Unfortunately for ACT, it turns out that all of the embryos involved in the experiment died. This revelation received much less press coverage. (It's worth noting that prior to ACT's announcement, their stock was trading for less than 50 cents per share. Following the announcement, it rose to nearly $2.00 per share. After the deception was discovered, the stock returned to just over 50 cents. It's currently in the 80 to 90 cent range.)
Most Missourians question the moral and ethical implications of creating human life for the purpose of destroying it. That alone should cause them to vote "no". But for those who don't share that view, they should ask themselves the following questions:
Does unproven research, research that is already legal in Missouri, deserve constitutional protection?
Do we want this research to be conducted by an industry with a history of "exagerating" their results, with no government control?
The preamble to the amendment, which voters won't see on election day, lists 45 sections of the state constitution that might be changed, repealed, or modified by this amendment. What are these sections? How might they be affected?
Missouri is known as the Show-me State. Have we been shown that this amendment is needed, or even desirable? Is it good law?
Who stands to gain and who stands to lose if amendment 2 becomes law?
Why have supporters spent nearly $30 million to promote this amendment? Why have one husband and wife contributed the vast majority of that $30 million? What's in it for them?
If we can't answer these questions, regardless of our opinion concerning the beginning of life and human experimentation, then common sense says we should vote "No".
For more information, see What's Wrong with Amendment 2?
posted by Mike at 7:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home