The stem cell policy of the Bush administration
Today, London’s Financial Times ran a critical column this week-end on the policy of the Bush administration as regards funding for stem cells research.
Actually, the U.S. House of the Representatives passed this week, 238 to 194 a bill authorizing the use of unused frozen embryos in fertility clinics for research. The result of the vote might appear astonishing since there is Republican majority in both House and Senate. However, a part of the Republicans, namely the « centrist » republicans voted with the Democrats, disagreeing on the policy of the Bush administration. Indeed, in 2001, with the rationale that stem cell research destroys life as does abortion (I explained that in an earlier post about the refrendum held in Italy), President Bush did withhold public funding from researches on stem cells.
Nevertheless, argued the columnist, there is a limit to President Bush’s attempts to ban biotechnologic researches: the thirst of Americans for managing one’s fertility which makes it very unlikely that legislators may ever ban at a Federal or State level research on stem cells, or the possibility of creating chimeras (animal beings with human genetic components). Indeed, it appeared that the National Academy of Sciences expressed concern for the possibility of creating animals gifted with human intelligence thanks to the inadvertent effect of some genes...
The concern of authorities for the question of cloning prompts rightly some questions by the columnist of the Financial Times on the discrepancy between the « world’s loudest arguments » against stem cell research and « the world’s laxest rules ».
The reply might be found in US history. The problematic history of the relations between the States and the Federal State especially after the Secession war in the late 1800 has led to a relationship made of a lot of defiance which characterizes the daily life of the relations within the country. Hence, a certain unwillingness of seeing the Federal level intefering at the State level. Another characteristic is that typically american relationship which binds together so closely economic spheres of influence with the politic world, and the pressure of the electors who are after « eternal life ». How could a legislator decide against such powerful lobbies who hold his (or her) re-election in hands?
Actually, the U.S. House of the Representatives passed this week, 238 to 194 a bill authorizing the use of unused frozen embryos in fertility clinics for research. The result of the vote might appear astonishing since there is Republican majority in both House and Senate. However, a part of the Republicans, namely the « centrist » republicans voted with the Democrats, disagreeing on the policy of the Bush administration. Indeed, in 2001, with the rationale that stem cell research destroys life as does abortion (I explained that in an earlier post about the refrendum held in Italy), President Bush did withhold public funding from researches on stem cells.
Nevertheless, argued the columnist, there is a limit to President Bush’s attempts to ban biotechnologic researches: the thirst of Americans for managing one’s fertility which makes it very unlikely that legislators may ever ban at a Federal or State level research on stem cells, or the possibility of creating chimeras (animal beings with human genetic components). Indeed, it appeared that the National Academy of Sciences expressed concern for the possibility of creating animals gifted with human intelligence thanks to the inadvertent effect of some genes...
The concern of authorities for the question of cloning prompts rightly some questions by the columnist of the Financial Times on the discrepancy between the « world’s loudest arguments » against stem cell research and « the world’s laxest rules ».
The reply might be found in US history. The problematic history of the relations between the States and the Federal State especially after the Secession war in the late 1800 has led to a relationship made of a lot of defiance which characterizes the daily life of the relations within the country. Hence, a certain unwillingness of seeing the Federal level intefering at the State level. Another characteristic is that typically american relationship which binds together so closely economic spheres of influence with the politic world, and the pressure of the electors who are after « eternal life ». How could a legislator decide against such powerful lobbies who hold his (or her) re-election in hands?
posted by dawnofeurope | 8:18 pm
<< Home