Irresponsible "science"

The president yesterday signed an executive order undoing an order signed by his predecessor, banning the use of federal monies to fund embryonic stem cell research.

Embryonic stem-cell research has been able to continue, just lacking the funding of the federal government. In the years since George W. Bush banned the use of federal funds, research has continued, both in the United States, and overseas.

To date there have been no therapies developed by used embryonic stem cells, yet adult stem cells have produced treatments for many conditions.

Yet there is celebration that the embryonic research will not be funded by the people (several hundred millions dollars have been privately raised and spent in the 7 1/2 years since President Bush banned federal funding), as though the additional money will create cures that were non-existent before. The cells don't care about the money involved in research, nor do they care where the money came from. The funding ultimately means nothing to the research.

But to those who have to pay for the funding now, it means quite a bit.

Not all Americans think that the destruction of human embryos will yield the results that such informed individuals as Michael J. Fox do. Setting the ethical considerations aside for a moment, I can only help but wonder if there has been a whole lot of thought put into what the development of a treatment might mean.

In Barcelona, a Columbian woman had her trachea, which had collapsed due to tuberculosis, replaced with one that had been grown by using a prepared (cells that could have caused an immune reaction, i.e. organ rejection had been stripped off) donor's tracheal segment, and treated with the patient's own stem-cells (harvested from her bone marrow) to aid in growing the replacement in a lab. She has shown no signs of rejection, mainly because of the application of her own stem cells.

How exactly can one use something developed using stem cells not their own (embryonic) and not expect some degree of rejection? While I'm certain some scientist somewhere has an idea about that, but there is no practical information to show that there would not be rejection of a treatment developed with embryonic cells. The reason this is a concern is that the embryonic cells contain DNA that does not match the patient. The DNA sequence of the embryonic stem cells is unique unto itself, showing compatibility with the DNA of its progenitors (mother and father), but separate from any other DNA sequence in the world.

Organ transplants take place all the time. Sometimes they take with minimal rejection, sometimes the body rejects transplanted organs all together. But rejection is something that needs to be considered, and as far as I have heard, embryonic stem cell research CAN lead to cures for all kinds of maladies, but has not been used TO cure anything, and I doubt that much consideration has been given to the potential of rejection, with research going instead to finding the "cures" that scientists are sure are there.

But this is very poor science. The conclusion is that these cures are hiding in embryonic stem cells, and all the scientists need is a few more dollars to break though whatever barrier stops them, but there is nothing to indicate that such can be accomplished, other than the preconceived conclusions. The research could very well lead to data that indicates embryonic stem cells cannot be used for what scientists and celebrities KNOW is there.

If that is the case, will the research stop, or will money be wasted, while proven treatments using non-embryonic stem cells sit with no further expansion or exploration of what could be?

As for the ethical concerns, it goes back to the presidential campaign.

Candidate B.O. was asked, "when does life begin?" His response is that the answer was "beyond his pay grade". It seems that he has decided he can determine that now, and I would love to see him asked this question now.

His decision to free up federal funds (which are few and far between these days thanks to the bailouts) for embryonic research seems to indicate that he KNOWS that life does not begin at conception, otherwise he would not be willing to allow federal money to be used to research that would destroy lives (since an embryo is post-conception).

So the question MUST be asked, not only of the president, but of those who support the idea of embryonic stem cell research:

When does life begin?

Unless that question can be definitively answered by science, in a way that does not apply some standard that is different than recognizing what is alive in another situation, then the destruction of human embryos in the name of science MUST be halted, lest the science have the taint of irresponsibility about it.

The ends cannot justify the means when the means involves innocent human lives, if we are to stand where we are and condemn the kind of vivisection that took place in Nazi "research" labs.

Take the time to apply responsible science before taking the "next step" and deciding that embryos are nothing more than "just" cells.

Each of us, at one point, were embryos.

We owe it to future generations to remember that, and not destroy them in the selfish pursuit of "the greater good".