« Q: What's the difference between a "grope" and a "massage"? | Main | Congressional Preview #4 - PA/VA/NC/FL »

July 19, 2006

Bush's Stem Cell Veto Being Mischaracterized

All the hullabaloo over the President's threatened veto of the stem cell research bill had me actually believing that the bill was about whether or not to allow stem cell research in the United States. People have been arguing that the President should sign the bill because it would save lives, help paralyzed people walk again, etc., with the implication being that unless the bill is signed into law, stem cell research would not be performed here.

But that's not what the bill does at all. That argument is, no doubt, intended to accentuate the perception that the President is a heartless fundamentalist. But unlike most message simplification for the masses, the argument is actually false. Why do people think they need to do that? Especially when the truth about the looming veto would give us a clearer and, in my opinion, darker picture of the man?

What I didn't know until yesterday is that stem cell research is already being legally done in the United States. Here's what the bill is actually about:

In the United States, stem-cell research is being conducted in a federal regulatory vacuum. This stands in stark contrast to the situation in most of Europe, Canada and Australia, where comprehensive national systems of oversight have been established. In the United Kingdom, a Stem Cell Steering Committee (SCSC) develops national rules of conduct for stem-cell research and oversees the operations of a nationally sponsored stem-cell bank. The SCSC includes scientists, health experts, ethicists, theologians and lay members. Any institution wishing to conduct stem-cell research, or to deposit or have access to cell lines held by the stem-cell bank, must first obtain a license obligating it to abide by nationally uniform rules.

Why has nothing like this been established in the United States? A key reason is that the major interest groups involved have resisted regulatory oversight. Religious conservatives fear that creation of regulatory structures could ease the way toward approval of practices they believe should be banned. Scientists, commercial biotech firms and fertility clinic operators have been reluctant to accept limits on what they see as their inherent right to conduct research and make profits.

Why have the pundits on the left focused on the Christian angle here and not on the government oversight of the medical research industry? Surely there are ties here to Big Pharma - part of the nest of greed that manipulates our government for profit. To me, that is a more damning loyalty on the part of the President than if he made a decision to veto the bill based on his religious principles.

Posted by Becky at July 19, 2006 06:17 AM