 |
 |
NEBRASKA DECISION: Resolution to Ban Embryonic Stem Cell Research? by Don C. Reed Friday, November 20th, Religious Right forces will attempt to impose their beliefs on the state of Nebraska . If they win, embryonic stem cell research will be banned at the University of Nebraska , (NU)- the only place large enough to do the research. As you know, right to life groups had already agreed to a compromise law: LB 606, signed by every legislator in that state, and which was supposed to have settled the issue. In exchange for major concessions and advantages given away by the pro-research side (no SCNT or therapeutic cloning, also no new stem cell lines made in the state, even a half-million dollar annual grant given to the Religious Right's research of choice, adult stem cell research) the religious right groups agreed to back off on further anti-research legislation. It was a harsh law, very restrictive. But at least it was something (we thought) that would let the researchers work without fear of further harassment.. Unfortunately: as soon the anti-research forces got their law, they immediately shifted their attack-- to the only place in the state that could actually do the research. If they can block embryonic stem cell research at NU, they will have succeeded with their original goal of blocking the research in the entire state, and all this talk of "compromise" will be revealed as an empty joke. Technically, they did not break their word. Technically. But it reminds me of another joke: remember the one about the Russians and the Americans having an athletic contest? According to the story, the Russians had a two-way contest with America , some sports event with only two countries entered. Russia lost; America won. But the Russian press release said: "Russian athletes perform brilliantly, finish strong second. American athletes do terribly, finish next to last." That press release was technically accurate. But its planned impact was otherwise. Similarly, the Nebraska Religious Right did not break its carefully worded official promise-like a nation which signs a peace treaty, promising to end its war of bow and arrows and then shifts to machine guns instead-but there was a point of honor here. The bill (LB 606) was supposed to settle the issue for the state. It was a compromise. It was carefully worked out, with the full involvement of the Religious Right groups in the state. It involved major restrictions on the research-but it could have been lived with. It was peace. And then the peace was violated by this new assault. Personally, although an outsider to the state, I supported LB 606. I thought it was a reasonable compromise, though at the very edge of acceptability--and I backed it. Every great step forward is a compromise, and I supported this one. I felt it might be even be a useful example, an olive branch between two sides. People in the middle can shake hands; extremists never can. And then this happens? Personally, if I were a member of the Religious Right, (which obviously I am not) I would be on the phone right now, recommending that the move against the University of Nebraska be stopped: because it poisons the well for chances for future cooperation. But of course they are not taking my advice. Here is how they will try to block the research. They essentially claim ownership of the board of Regents of the University of Nebraska . Before the election, the Right to Life groups passed out a form, detailing their positions. If you wanted their support (which may swing 5% of the votes in a close election), you must agree to their demands. Apparently, a majority signed that political agreement. Now, the Religious Right issued their commands: ordering the board to ban the research-shutting down the research they could not defeat in law. Four Regents, all of whom received the Right to Life endorsement, wrote the resolution. Four of eight. One more vote, and they can impose their policy. Who is that one man? His name is Jim McClurg. Whatever he decides in the end, he deserves credit for courage. When offered a chance to co-author the resolution (and give it the fifth vote, which would have imposed it on the state) he declined, saying: "There's a lot of good people on both sides of this issue who have heartfelt opinions on it. I'll decide once I've heard what everybody has to say." -World Herald Bureau, Leslie Reed, "Stem Cells to Face Vote", November 13, 2009 The religious right is putting enormous pressure on Mr. McClurg. They have publicly posted his name, email, and phone number, and encouraged their members to call him. This is dirty pool, political bullying of the worst sort. How would you like to have a bunch of religious enthusiasts calling your home, day and night? As for the resolution itself, it is two pages of rationalization, trying to put as good a face as possible on the theft of research from a state. Here is the only part that matters. ".no research with stem cells derived from human embryos may be conducted unless the stem cell lines used in the research were derived prior to 8 p.m. Central Standard Time, on August 9, 2001.." In other words, defy the Obama NIH guidelines, and go back the Bush era restrictions. This is an extremist position: out of touch not only with the beliefs of Nebraskans ( NU President J.B. Milliken estimates that between 2/3 and ¾ of all Nebraskans support embryonic stem cell research) but also with the State's government, the official state policy, America 's current policy and much more. If the board obeys the right-to-life command, they will be overriding a carefully worked-out policy signed by all 48 Nebraska state legislators (Democrats and Republicans unanimously voted yes on LB 606, the compromise legislation), and the Governor of the State Dave Heineman, who signed that bill into law. The policy also ignores the expert opinion of virtually the entire scientific community. Do I exaggerate? Let me prove my point, two ways: First, remember the national law, HR 3, the bi-partisan Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (Castle,DeGette), to allow federal funding for stem cell lines made from left-over blastocysts, which would otherwise have been thrown away after In Vitro Fertility (IVF) procedures. Who was against it? Here is the official list of organizations which opposed this bill. GROUPS AGAINST the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act: The following list was obtained from the RSC Republican Study Committee, Rep. Jeb Hensnarling, (R-TX), Chairman, 132Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.Legislative Bulletin, January 10, 2007 "National Right to Life Committee, US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Family Research Council, Christian Coalition , Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, Christian Medical Association, Eagle Forum, Traditional Values Coalition, Southern Baptist Convention, Susan B. Anthony List, Republican National Committee for Life, Cornerstone Policy Research, Culture of Life Foundation, Religious Freedom Coalition, Coral Ridge Ministries, Center For Reclaiming America." End quote. How many scientific groups do you see up there? How many patient groups? How many medical groups, disease advocacy groups, research groups--- there aren't any. The opposition was entirely conservative religious/ideological political organizations. And this, I strongly suspect, is what you would find if you made a list of those groups that are trying to kill the research at the college. Point Two: Which groups support embryonic stem cell research? That group is huge, far too large to fit comfortable in this small column. A part of it is included at the bottom of the page. But if you want to really see the vast level of support, here is a website to visit. Alliance for Stem Cell Research is a group I worked with to help pass Proposition 71, which funds stem cell research in California, the largest source of embryonic stem cell research funding in the world. If you push control/click on it, and go to "coalition", you will see the really astonishing levels of American support for embryonic stem cell research. If the Nebraska University Board of Regents caves in to the religious right, it will have a long term negative effect on the state. Jobwise, Nebraska will be denied opportunities open to the rest of the country. In humanitarian costs, the nation will be denied Nebraska 's contribution to the advancement of medical science. But right now, think of just one child, growing up in Nebraska today, maybe dreaming of becoming a scientist, to help heal suffering and save lives through medical research. If this backwards resolution is passed, the only advice I could give to that child would be: Leave Nebraska . Folks, there is a lot more I could say, but time is running short. The decision will be made this Friday, in Lincoln , Nebraska . If you have an opinion, voice it now, or forever hold your peace. Here is how you can be heard. Below is a short piece I found on the web, from a champion athlete of Nebraska . (Please note that he has no connection with any of my opinions.) I am running it without the pictures, to save space. Protect Research in Nebraska I'm Rik Bonness and these are our sons, Eric and Beau. Both of our sons have Type 1 diabetes.. They have lived with tens of thousands of finger pricks, insulin shots and constant worry over signs of retina or nerve damage or kidney failure. We believe someday there will be a cure for diabetes. As an All-American center at the University of Nebraska, I was expected to give 100% every minute of every game. And that's what we need to do here in Nebraska when it comes to research. Stem cell research - including embryonic stem cell research - offers hope to our sons and thousands of Nebraskans who suffer from diabetes, Parkinson's and other devastating diseases. For years, it has been the policy of the University of Nebraska to follow the strict, ethical guidelines established by the National Institutes of Health, the federal government and state law. But now the Board of Regents is being pressured to change that policy to ban some of the most promising avenues of research. Now, I'm asking you to give 100% for Nebraska. Please go to www.nebraskacures I will continue this in another email as it is too long to post. Ray Rayilyn Brown Director AZNPF Arizona Chapter National Parkinson Foundation [log in to unmask] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn