The good news is that phone calls and emails from Texas voters created enough fuss and bother in Austin last week that lobbyists from the UT system joined our efforts to successfully convince the House and the Senate to remove the proposed $41 million bond issue for a biomedical technology center at the UT Houston. The Universities didn't want a debate on embryonic stem cell research. Were they were afraid that the taxpayers would learn about plans to use tax money on research that isn’t eligible for federal funds? See this note from last week’s Austin American Statesman.
The bad news is that the Universities continue investing and engaging in destructive research on human embryos, rather than focusing on the non-destructive umbilical cord and adult stem cells which show progress and – unlike embryonic stem cells - yield cures.
That Houston facility would have been a first: State taxes would have supported destructive research on embryonic human research subjects that don’t qualify for federal funds. For proof from last year's debate on these bills (HB 153 and SB 46 were formerly SB 6), use your Real Play to watch the debate on July 25, 2005 at the Texas Legislature Online video archive beginning one hour into the segment. You can also read about it from the August, 2005 article at ReasonOnline, or the at the Journal of American Bioethics and Humanities.
UT Houston didn’t need our $41 million anyway: the privately funded $200 million Brown Foundation Institute of Molecular Medicine
with its new $120 Million Sarofim Research Center building, just received a $100,000 grant to do research on frozen IVF embryos that don't qualify for federal or State funds.
With all those private donations, why come asking for State taxpayer money at all?
Instead, Texas should focus on ethical stem cell research like these examples:
1. UT Medical Branch at Galveston reports “Embryonic-like” umbilical cord stem cells and techniques to greatly expand stem cells for therapy, developed in cooperation with NASA and British researchers.
2. Houston just received approval from the Federal FDA for patient trials using stem cells from patients’ own bone marrow in heart disease and another study that will treat children with brain trauma.
3. Umbilical cord blood stem cell transplants to replace bone marrow are available at all the large medical centers in Texas and Texas has our new Cord Blood Bank.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Texas Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
At least using surplus IVF embryos is comparatively free of ethical issues, as they are only going to be destroyed eventually anyway.
Actually, raises an interesting question... is there any ethical difference between using an embryo created by natural fertilisation for either research or treatment and using one created by something like nuclear transfer? No *new* life is created than. At least no new genetic pattern is.
I think the federal restrictions on funding embryonic stem cell research are not nessicarily bad - other stem cell sources do seem more promising for medium-term cures - but comes from the wrong source. It was due to massive political pressure from people who are completly ignorant of the biological and medical issues involved, and have no intention of learning, campaigning out of moral reflex. Not oppionion from and debate by qualified experts.
A bit like that XXX domain that was recently abandoned (officially, the government had nothing to do with that... legal technicality, everyone knows they ordered it abandoned). There was much debate about how effective or ineffective it would have been, its impact on freedom of speech, issues of enforcement. Most of the debate concluded it was a Very Bad Idea. Ineffective, unenforceable. But it was defeated not by debate, but by the power of millions of people chanting 'sex is evil! We dont vote for non-prudes!'
your NT example would fit identical twins, too. Which of the two (or three or four in the case of identical triplets or quadruplets) is not human enough for you?
There's no difference between either embryo. They are the children of humans - they are humans.
You have it completely wrong about "experts" and "prudes." The highest esteem is held for societies and governments that widen, not narrow, the definition of human rights to include all, and from creation.
We will vote for those who will protect the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In that order.
Isn't it amazing that all this
I was only using the xxx domain as an example of a similar situation where an important issue was decided by people with a very strong oppionion, but no understanding or relivent education.
Post a Comment