Stem Cells: Politicizing the Death of Superman

There are thousands of articles on stem cell research and the number is growing. A Google News search of "stem cell research" returned 5,510 items including this one:

"It's a hot topic in the current campaign.

President Bush initiated federal funding of research on embryonic stem cells - but with substantial limits, which John Kerry promises to lift.

As is often the case when politics infuses science, truth tends to suffer.

Kerry insinuates that Bush has effected a federal ban on such study. Not so: Limitations on what the government will fund aren't a ban. "

I am not a scientist. I support science, and recognize that we are infinitely better off with the vast majority of scientific discoveries over the centuries. I also think some 'discoveries' and methods by which they came about, raise moral questions, which, as human beings, we should consider.

Meanwhile, the moral issues are inescapably in the present: Does the deliberate destruction of a human embryo equate to the taking of a human life?

It's a tough question; at the very least, those who answer in the affirmative deserve respect for their beliefs - and, in any event, it's not a topic that lends itself to rational discussion in a political campaign.

One need only consider how badly science is served whenever "global warming" is raised to see where the stem-cell debate is headed.

There are advocates on both sides of this issue. Almost all agree that any 'cures' for the debilitating diseases and afflictions being used as political footballs (Alztheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, etc) are years and years away - if ever. Additionally, most agree that 'lines of morality' do exist in the scientific community. Where they are drawn, however, is another debate. This from another of the 5,510 articles:

The other problem in the embryonic stem-cell debate, Schriber said, is a lack of fundamental understanding about it and its potential.

"It's not like stem-cell research is going tomorrow to help cure people with spinal cord injuries," he said. "But by investing in this now, it will help years down the road.

"The problem is that the issue is being polarized into a religious argument."

There are alternatives to using fertilized eggs or embryos, but they involve an even more explosive topic: cloning. They include removing the nucleus of a human egg and inserting the genes from, say, a human hair, to create a human clone from which to cull embryonic stem cells.

"I don't think anyone wants human cloning," Schriber said. "That's medically unethical; that's easy (to determine)."

Ultimately, the difference between the candidates shouldn't be whether they 'support stem-cell research' or not - they both do. The difference is the approach they will take for this, and future, scientific decisions, where the federal government should, or should not be, involved. George Bush believes in considering the 'moral' and 'ethical' lines and John Kerry simply ignores them.

UPDATE: Edwards comments are way over the line - but hey, he's a trial lawyer. What can we expect?