The Stem Cell Debate
The Stem Cell debate is going to take center stage almost immediately after Obama takes office. In fact, as of December 20th, 2008, he has filled his scientific staff with not only experts on climate change, but also with experts in the field of genetics. Thus, it behooves the republican party to have a thorough understanding of the issue...and more importantly, to form on a position consensus.
Definition Of Stem Cells
According to the National Institute Of Health (NIH), Stem cells have two important characteristics that distinguish them from other types of cells. First, they are unspecialized cells that renew themselves for long periods through cell division. The second is that under certain physiologic or experimental conditions, they can be induced to become cells with special functions such as the beating cells of the heart muscle or the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas.
Scientists primarily work with two kinds of stem cells from animals and humans: embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells, which have different functions and characteristics. Scientists discovered ways to obtain or derive stem cells from early mouse embryos more than 20 years ago. Many years of detailed study of the biology of mouse stem cells led to the discovery, in 1998, of how to isolate stem cells from human embryos and grow the cells in the laboratory. These are called human embryonic stem cells.
Human Embryonic Stem Cells have unique characteristics in that they are unspecialized, they are capable of dividing and renewing themselves for long periods, and that they can give rise to specialized cells through a process called differentiation. It is this differentiation process that can be used to create specialized cells which form the basis for replacement or regenerative therapies.
The Issue
It is widely believed by the scientific community that theoretically, Human Embryonic Stem Cells can be used to form the basis in providing cures to many of the advanced ailments of the human condition. The problem politically however, is that the only way to obtain Human Embryonic Stem Cells is through extraction of a fertilized embryo from a woman's utereus; in other words, through Abortion. And we, as republicans, are adamantly against this.
However, one cannot ignore the great healing potential that the Stem Cell approach could offer. So much so, that if successful, Stem Cell therapy can literally be categorized as something that contributes to the betterment of mankind...right up there with penicillin, the Polio vaccine, the Malaria vaccine, and all the other great medicinal breakthroughs.
So on one hand, we have an abortion...and on the other hand, we have the potential to cure that little kid with bone cancer, or that father of four who was paralyzed due to Multiple Schlerosis. Which do we choose? The saving of a life or the taking of a life for the betterment of humanity.
Indications And Current Perception
The 2008 election has indicated that the majority of the citizenry is for Stem Cell research simply through election of a candidate who has stated in no uncertain terms that he is adamantly in support of such research. The issue was clearly not a disqualifier for the majority of the electorate. And because of this, it can also be deduced that anyone, or any group that opposes Stem Cell research will be regarded as against the betterment of humanity.
By being against stem cell research, we, the republican party risk being seen as the ones who don't want the Michael J. Fox's to stop experiencing those violent tremors. We'll be seen as the ones who don't want the Christopher Reeves and others with devastating spinal cord injuries to get up and walk. And we'll be seen as the ones who don't want to help the young experiencing the leukemias and other life threatening diseases. In other words, we'll become the party of the cruel. And that alone will turn others off to our message both now and in the future; especially if success is achieved with Stem Cell reasearch.
Can We Ever Get On Board With Stem Cell Research?
Being against the eradication of the ravages of disease is not a popular position. Since elections are all about popularity, it might behoove our party to find ways to get on board with Stem Cell research.
It is widely understood that the conservative christian component of our party is the most vocal and the most adamantly opposed to Stem Cell research. In their mind, Stem Cell research is an abortion, plain and simple...and they are right. It is the taking of a life. But could this issue be reframed such that it can at least get an important part of our party to open up to the idea; if only for a limited but not full time basis?
Sacrifice For The Betterment Of Mankind. Does That Thought Process Make Stem Cell Research Viable?
The bible has taught the concept of sacrifice through the story of Abraham in the old testament and most definitely through the story of Jesus in the New Testament. The bible also teaches the concept of healing and also answers the question as to whether or not we should be messing with this advanced stuff through the parable of the ten talents. So does this thought process open up some wiggle room on this issue for our conservative christian friends?
If so, then the issue further breaks down into an issue of ratios. i.e. what is the acceptable number of lives that can be positively affected / saved by the taking of a single life that exists within that fertilized human embryo?
Guarding Against The Pitfalls Of Supply And Demand
Since Stem Cell research is going to take place, what I believe we all can agree on is that we don't want the number of abortions that are going to take place to become a function of supply and demand. That is, we don't want all these research firms to be offering huge sums of money for the fertilized embryos. We don't need a bidding war and we don't want abortions to become like the modern day practice of giving blood for a fee. That should be non-negotiable. And, I believe there is a good moral basis for this in the minds of everyone whether pro or con on the abortion issue.
Furthermore, Stem Cell research is still just a theory. We need to loudly remind everyone of that. This might buy us some temporance on the abortions performed to "stock" the research shelves. Being the moral majority on the issue might hold water in the minds of all. The opposition knows our position. They'll understand our watchdog mentality on the issue. In fact, they'll expect it. Transparency of the research MUST be provided.
Publicly Stating We're On Board....For Now....
Is it better to be included than excluded from the process. If we're seen as divisive on this issue, we'll be excluded and we won't get any say. We need voice and thus we need to be perceived as part of the solution. I personnaly believe that we can't afford to be marginalized on this issue.
