stem cells----------------------------art
embryonic stem cell colonies from the lab of developmental biologist James Thompson
Source: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Used with permission © University of Wisconsin Board of Regents
California Capitol Building, Sacramento, California
An article ( "Calif. Voters Lean Toward Stem Cell Measure-Poll") published yesterday by Reuters about Proposition 71, the $3/6 billion embryonic stem cell bond measure in California, concludes by saying:
If you were interested in this story, you might want to join the California Politics Today mailing list, so you can be notified of other such pieces. Doing so means that you will receive occasional or frequent e-mailings, as appropriate, alerting you to new stories and interviews about the latest developments in the always-fascinating politics of the jurisdiction that is more than a state but not yet a nation. Just click below and follow the simple instructions that follow.
"The ballot proposal would establish a constitutional right within California to conduct stem cell research, while outlawing reproductive cloning research."
This is the biological equivalent of saying:
"The ballot proposal would establish a constitutional right within California to conduct research into the use of uranium and plutonium in chain reactions, while outlawing the construction of nuclear weapons."
As bioethicist Wesley Smith pointed out in an interview on California Politics Today, there is only a single process ("somatic cell nuclear transfer" [SCNT]) for creating a cloned human embryo. This is exactly the same process whether the resulting embryo is going to be used "therapeutically" (to create stem cells from the "cell mass" inside the blastocyst) or "reproductively" (to create a child by implanting a viable embryo in a woman's uterus).
Like the methodology of creating useable (or destructive) power from the "curve of binding energy", the tools needed to do the kind of embryonic stem cell research called for by Proposition 71 are "dual use technologies."
So everything learned by success or failure doing (embryonic) "stem cell research" with Proposition 71's $3/6 billion dollars in borrowed money will have immediate and useful application in doing "reproductive cloning research," despite the disingenuous assurances to the contrary being given in the initiative itself and in its proponents' campaign rhetoric.
The Stanford bio-technologists behind Proposition 71 certainly know how dishonest this is. They are acquiescing in (or spearheading) this cynical linguistic manipulation in order to get money to carry on their interesting and potentially very lucrative human cloning research for the oldest reason power always has, because they feel like it and because they can.
The same article from Reuters also contains these telling items:
"A survey by the Los Angeles Times showed that while most voters had not yet formed an opinion on the ballot measure known as Proposition 71, a majority expressed support once they were read the proposal itself.
"The survey showed 54 percent of likely voters in California said they were inclined to vote for the stem cell proposal, compared with 32 percent who said they would vote against it.
"Fourteen percent said they were not sure.
"Only 2 of 10 voters surveyed by the newspaper agreed with opponents who argue that stem cell research is ethically wrong because it uses cells from viable human embryos."
The first three paragraphs demonstrate the power of "push polling," the ability to get a pre-determined survey result by providing pollees with biased information from only one side of a disputed issue.
The last paragraph should give pause to those opposing Proposition 71, and hoping to defeat it, on the grounds that the technique to be used in the "stem cell research" that will be constitutionally privileged by that measure involves the proposed willful and wholesale creation and destruction of innocent human life. In fact, it already does give them a lot of pause.
If creating viable cloned or "normally" in vitro fertilized human embryos for the purpose of harvesting the potentially valuable (in more ways than one) cell mass/stem cells within them only bothers 20% of "voters," can we assume that only these people will "agree with opponents" who say it's morally wrong to let embryos, suitably implanted in a woman's uterus, develop to the point where their kidneys, or hearts, or brains have developed sufficiently to be useful in the treatment of terrible diseases, and then harvest them, too?
If poor women in less developed countries are seen as acceptable sources of eggs for the bio-medical experiments contemplated under and to be paid for by Proposition 71, why shouldn't the even more powerless entities that can be created by the science being fostered by Proposition 71 be fair game for cultivation and harvest?
The next step here should also be obvious, given this striking reported lack of reluctance by 80% of "voters" to have any qualms about manipulating human germ plasm in the name of alleviating human suffering. Apart from the minor remaining technical problems facing scientists eager to create genetically-enhanced trans-humans, the assumed public opposition, even abhorrence, regarding such a development has been the only major factor preventing such experiments (along with, of course, the question of funding, which Proposition 71 directly addresses, and potentially solves).
If only such a small minority is opposed to somatic cell nuclear transfer on ethical grounds and given the general population's lack of understanding regarding the subtleties of bio-medical technology, which probably includes an almost complete ignorance of the means by which gene expression can already be regulated in cells, there's really no compelling reason to any longer put off the great game of creating the next stage in (controlled) human evolution, the design and production of homo stanfordensis.
Those creatures will surely have a special place in their genetically-enhanced hearts for Proposition 71 and those who conceived and brought it to term.
Why not sign up for the California Politics Today mailing list? .
