 |
 |
Dr Fink -- I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Last December, the Bush administration reversed a Clinton administration policy and granted a $2 million subsidy to private lumber companies to clear-cut 800 year old timber in America's largest intact rain forest, the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. This clearcutting effort yielded gross income to the US treasury of $45,000 on the taxpayers' investment of $2 million dollars. The profit all went to the private lumber companies. On July 12th, the Bush administration proposed extending this program of subsidizing private lumber companies in their clear cutting of national forests to extend to all national forests, not just the Tongass National Forest. I think that your statement that the government can't give funds to a lumber company to do this is just factually incorrect because the Bush administration is doing just that. Regarding stem cell research, I agree that that a sizable minority of people agree that certain types of stem cell research is immoral. I also agree that it is legitimate in some cases to prohibit such work to be done with public money. What I think most people object to is that this decision was not made for moral or scientific reasons but for purely political and selfish reasons. By the way, I have no problems with decisions being made for political reasons. However, I don't think it's right to purposefully misrepresent the rationale for such decisions and pretend that the decisions were made for supposed scientific or moral reasons. The reasons put forth by the administration for these decisions are unsupportable by any scientific standard. Furthermore, there are some in the US Government who are attempting criminalize the act of a patient receiving medical treatment if that treatment was derived from *legal* research performed using embryos generated from asexual reproduction (ie reproduction not involving a sperm cell and and egg cell). Patients receiving such treatment would be subject to a fine and imprisonment for up to 10 years in a federal penitentiary or both fine and imprisonment. This is so even if the research and treatment were paid for entirely with private funds. Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert A. > Fink, M. D. > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 9:17 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: The (Political) Science of Stem Cells > > On 13 Aug 2004 at 14:09, M.Schild wrote: > > > In simple words: Bush doesn´t want to give money for ESC > research but > > leaves the private intitutions to do it. Morality has its reasons > > that Reason ignores.... > > or have I missed something? > > What has been missed here is that there is a sizable group of > people who believe that certain types of stem cell work is > immoral. In a free society, private individuals (and > companies) can engage in activities as long as they are not > *illegal*. But when *public* money is used for such > activities, it is legitimate for Government to prohibit such > work to be done with public money. > > For example, a lumber company can clear-cut a forest that is > its private property (as bad as that is, it is not illegal); > but they cannot clear-cut in a National Forest. Neither can > the Government give funds to the lumber company to facilitate > the clear-cutting, even on the private land. > > > Best, > > Bob > > ********************************************** > Robert A. Fink, M. D., F.A.C.S., P. C. > 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 > Berkeley, California 94704-2636 > Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 > WWW: http://www.rafink.com/ > > mailto:[log in to unmask] > > "Ex Tristitia Virtus" > > ********************************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn