Here is the first three paragraphs from a long Guest Essay in the September
2, DemocratandChronicle,Rochester New York. The author is Dr Mark Noble, a
researcher in the study of stem cells, and a professor at the University of
Rochester Medical Center.
Titled Clash of Politics, religion mustn't trip up science.
Such work is "bidding defiance to Heaven itself-even to the will of God. It
is "encroachment on the prerogatives of Jehovah".
Such words were spoken by religious leaders not against stem cells, but
against vaccination. In the 18th and 19th centuries, many church figures
opposed vaccination as vehemently as some now oppose embryonic stem cell
research. When , however, many Catholics of Montreal died in 1885 in a small
pox epidemic that killed 3,234-while vaccinated Protestants survived-and
when Louis XV of France died of smallpox, opposition to vaccination
crumbled. The debate on stem cell therapies will end the same way as
therapeutic advances occur worldwide(even if funding restrictions force US.
researcher to become secondary contributors to these advances).
Embryonic stem cells represent the next revolutionary advance in disease
treatment. For conditions such as diabetes, chronic lever failure and many
diseases of the brain and spinal cord, the most effective treatment would be
to replace cells that have been destroyed. The problem is where to obtain
cells for repair. For example, in Parkinson's disease, specific nerve cells
in the brain are destroyed. Now the best result using cell replacement to
treat PD come from using brain cells from abortion, but treatment of one
patient require cell from brains of six aborted fetus.
In contrast, embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner mass, of a
primitive ball of roughly 100 cells, called a blastocyst, that contains no
muscle, no nervous system, no organs of any kind and is a fleeting
developmental stage lasting for only six or seven day. From a single ball of
embryonic stem cells smaller then a pin head, more than enough cells can be
derived potential to treat hundreds of living humans.
Donna and John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert A. Fink, M. D." <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 3:48 PM
Subject: Stem cell initiative (California)
> Here in California, we have an initiative on the November ballot which, if
> passed, would essentially remove all restrictions from the use of
> embryonic
> stem cells in medical research and/or treatment.
>
> On this List, some have said that "scientists" are in favor of
> unrestricted
> activities in this area. The Letter to the Editor below (from the San
> Francisco
> Chronicle) says otherwise:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> San Francisco
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Stem-cell issue on state ballot
>
> Editor -- The article, "What we should know (and almost didn't)," by Tina
> Stevens (Open Forum, Aug. 29) introduces reasoned discussion on embryo
> stem-cell research, a topic that has been a casualty of the highly
> polarized
> abortion debate in this country .
>
> Frustration with the Bush administration's anti-science and anti-choice
> policies is understandable. But those of us who are pro-choice should not
> let
> Proposition 71 take us to the opposite extreme.
>
> Emotional appeals such as those offered by Peter Van Etten ("Embryonic
> stem-cell research -- A ray of hope," Open Forum, Aug. 29) are not a sound
> basis for such a dramatic departure from established methods of
> determining
> appropriate use of public resources.
>
> Passage of Prop. 71 would open the door for commercialization and
> patenting
> that would enrich scientists and biotech companies at great cost to
> taxpayers.
>
> It would expose untold numbers of women to risky procedures to extract
> their
> ova, and catapult us into a world of corporate manipulation of the human
> genome.
>
> There are no adequate oversight mechanisms for such research in
> California.
>
> Moreover, Prop. 71 includes dangerous exemptions from the Bagley-Keene
> Open Meeting Act.
>
> It ominously authorizes modifications of standards for research on human
> subjects.
>
> We don't need to amend our state Constitution to promote biotech interests
> while ignoring more promising research in adult and cord blood stem- cell
> research. No on Prop. 71.
>
>
> DIANE BEESON
> Chair, Department of Sociology
>
> and Social Services
>
> California State University
>
> Hayward
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
