Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

EDITORIAL: Stem cell opponents must clarify arguments
Staff Editorial
Daily Bruin (UCLA)
07/24/2006

(U-WIRE) LOS ANGELES — When President Bush vetoed legislation to expand federally supported embryonic stem cell research last Wednesday, he only severed the lines of communication between Americans who support scientific expansion and those who have yet to explain why they don't.

On July 18, the Senate voted 63-37 to pass the bill that would allow more federal money to be spent on stem cell research, which faced restrictions by Bush that were imposed in 2001. A day later, the president issued the first veto in the six years he has been in office.

Bush defended his veto by saying, "I felt like crossing this line would be a mistake, and once crossed we would find it almost impossible to turn back." While he addressed the press, Bush was surrounded by a group of parents holding babies born through in vitro fertilization using so-called "adopted embryos."

Those who oppose stem cell research look to these children, who were born out of the type of stem cell embryos that are used for research for such diseases as Parkinson's disease. Those who support the research underscore the simple fact that no other potential therapy - including adult stem cells - is nearly as promising for curing life-threatening ailments.

According to Bush and others who oppose the use of stem cells, the sanctity of life trumps what they deem to be ethically questionable science. But why?

Considering the majority of Republican senators and representatives who support the bill, making this a nonpartisan issue, Bush and his constituency must do a better job of explaining their logic.

Those who oppose the bill maintain that using embryonic cells for research equates to killing a potential life, which sounds familiar to the abortion debate. The stem cell issue, however, tests the boundaries of the right-to-life argument in a way that abortion never has.

Stem cells used in research typically come from fertility clinics, which produce more embryos then they can use. This is because fertility clinics are trying to help people have as many babies as possible. And the embryos used for research are those earmarked for the trash anyway.

Those who ardently oppose stem cell research haven't elaborated on the reasons why the science is ethically shoddy. Perhaps there is a legitimate argument to be made. Until it is made, the rest of the country is left to wonder why scientific growth is being stunted.

Mike Pence, R-Ind., is one of the congressman who voted against the bill, which passed in the House of Representative in 2005. Pence told The New York Times that "the issue is whether or not it is morally right to use the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans who find this research morally objectionable."

Pence, like Bush, follows hollow logic with catchy talking points rather than sit down at the national table and discuss the issue at hand.

Both of them are evading a bigger question, and it has nothing to with the perceived gap between the faith-based community and the fact-based community.

The question is how to open dialogue about divisive issues involving religion and science. Such discussion should show that the nurturing of religion doesn't mean the complete destruction of science, and vice versa.

Bush has not shown he can do this.

[ Back to Student Voices ]