An article that appeared in The Boston Globe, while it seems to have come to my attention with title and date different than my search at the Globe to confirm -- the contents are the same.
OUTLAWING SCIENCE [Stifling science under guise of protection] Author(s): ELLEN GOODMAN Date: March 6, 2003 [Wednesday, March 5, 2003] Page: A15 Section: Op-Ed > Stifling science under guise of protection > By Ellen Goodman > > THE BOSTON GLOBE > > Wednesday, March 5, 2003 > > Never again will I underestimate the commitment of the U.S. House of > Representatives to homeland security. While the whole country is on an > emotional toggle switch, alternating between orange and yellow alert, the > representatives nevertheless have taken time out to protect our fair > country from another breed of international criminals: patients. J.D. Giorgis, brought an article from National Review by Rod Dreher to light: "Letter to a European Friend -- Explaining this war" http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher030403.asp While I understand the anxiety of 9/11, I am much more familiar than Dreher to truly understand "terrorism" because I've lived in a thirld-world country where every day you are under constant bomb threats. I take exception to his comment "We know what these terrorists can do, and will do; for Europeans, it was all a story on television." What's the matter with this guy? Did he forget the Munich Olympics? and many other incidents in Europe? But I digress!, my point is really to suggest that the administration is using this state of affairs to cloak other important issues, such as what the HR is doing. > Last week, the House passed a ban against all forms of human cloning. Not > just against reproductive cloning of embryos to make babies, but also > against therapeutic cloning for research to cure diseases. > > The bill, if passed by the Senate, would make it illegal for scientists, > those biological terrorists, to work on this promising research within our > borders. But just to make the picture complete, it would also turn > patients into criminals if they imported such medical therapy from abroad. We in Canada are having our own tug-o-war regarding this issue and my interest in what happens in the USA is because having a 1000 lbs. gorilla as neighbour will have an influnce in our policies. > Don't you feel safer already? Just imagine some latter-day patients > arriving back in the country. Not only would they have to remove their > shoes and have their carry-ons checked for dirty bombs, they'd have their > bodies checked for dirty cures. If their Alzheimer's or Parkinson's > treatment, their heart disease or spinal cord cure came from cloning > research, they'd be liable for a $1 million fine and 10 years in jail. > > How would you like to be the person arresting Christopher Reeve at the > gate? Ronn!Blankenship asked me if I was deer hunting when I fell out of a tree and I explained that I was cutting the branches. Kinda dumb, but that got me into a wheelchair and would certainly hope that everything possible be done to remedy the situation. Keeping in mind that the estimated lifetime costs for medical treatment and rehabilitation of spinal cord injury can be as much as $750,000 per individual, the cost vs. benefits of a prevention program are well worth the investment. Consider there are approx. 11,000 new cases per year. Available data for the year 2000 estimates approximately 54 million Americans have disabilities (National Council on Disability, 1999). This means almost one of every five people in the country have a disability, with about one-half considered to have a severe disability. In addition to disabilities arising from genetics, disease, and the aging process, hazards of modern living (automobile accidents, airline disasters, and other traumas) cause severe injuries that people are surviving, but with permanent disabilities. BTW, our numbers in Canada run at approx. 10% of the USA. > This little piece of homeland security comes, not surprisingly, in the > wake of the Raelian media invasion. The Raelians, you may recall, believe > that all of us are the cloned descendents of extraterrestrials who > apparently did not get frisked at the entry gate to the stratosphere. > > In December, followers of the white-garbed, topknotted leader announced > the birth of the first cloned baby. One cult's hoax became an entire > culture's wake-up call. > > For some time, there's been nearly unanimous agreement against treating > people like Dollys. Many of us have been calling for a ban on reproductive > cloning. But that ban on babies has been thwarted by those who insist on > criminalizing medicine as well. > > Anyone who has followed this debate and these debaters is aware that that > real argument is not about science, but politics. It's not about the > status of illnesses like diabetes; it's about the status of the embryo. > > As bioethicist Art Caplan says, "The House vote reflects just one thing: > the desire to get legal status for an embryo. This is the back door way to > get it done. They want to get it into law that you can't destroy an embryo > because it is a person." I think this is why Bush is having such a pickle with Estrada's nomination. Republicans Fail to Force Estrada Vote Senate Five Votes Short of 60 Needed to End Filibuster http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51124-2003Mar6.html "In response to Democrats' charges that the administration is trying to pack the courts with conservatives, Republicans accuse Democrats of applying "litmus tests" on abortion and other issues." > Cloning itself involves taking an egg, removing its nucleus and adding the > nucleus of an adult cell -- say a skin cell -- back into it. It's hoped > that the tailor-made stem cells could eventually be used in regenerative > medicine. But the cloned embryo can't become a baby unless it's > transplanted into a womb. > > The scientific and moral debate over the embryo is a long and heated one. > When the microscope was first invented, embryologists claimed to see > teeny-weeny people in the heads of the spermatozoa. Some modern > politicians sound like they share the same view, but modern science sees > an embryo as a potential life or a blueprint for life. To say that a > blueprint is a human being, says Caplan, is like saying that the lumber > and nails at Home Depot are a house. > > Nevertheless, an embryo has a much higher moral status than lumber and > nails. No one is suggesting that we clone embryos for frivolous research > into, say, perfume or face cream. But what about research that may > alleviate suffering and illness? > > Those who oppose this research talk ruefully about "creating a life to > destroy it," but what about saving a life? Does the value of an embryo in > a petri dish trump that of a child with a spinal cord injury in a > wheelchair? > Enough to turn a patient into an expatriate? > > If the House bill becomes law it will be a legal edge to revisit Roe vs. > Wade and in-vitro fertilization and genetic testing. If cooler heads > prevail in the Senate -- which last year voted for a cloning ban on > babies, not medicine -- then we are likely back to the status quo. > An unregulated stalemate. In some email I received the following reference [unknown origin]: "Roe vs. Wade was an extremely controversial court decision, involving the right of a woman to have an abortion. At the time, abortion was outlawed, but Roe vs. Wade proved this unconstitutional and sparked one of the biggest arguments of all time. Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Who were Roe and Wade? What the heck is all this rambling about, anyway?" If you are going to give up rights won before you may as well give up on all the amendments made to The Constitution! > Abortion politics is already costing us our lead in this cutting-edge > research. We've seen the beginning of a brain drain of American scientists > to Britain. Countries from China to Sweden are moving ahead under the > strict ethical regulations of an international agreement we refuse to > sign. > > Meanwhile at home, President Bush came out in favor of the House bill, > saying it would "ensure protection of human life as the frontiers of > science expand." But this is where those expanding "frontiers of science" > are stopped cold: right at the borders of the United States. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] So what's wrong with this picture? Cheers! -- Han Tacoma ~ Artificial Intelligence is better than none! ~ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
