"Taking Life to Save Life…Who decides?"
Comentary by Missouri Rep. Ed Emery (R-126)
Stowers Institute, a major proponent of embryonic stem cell research, also called SCNT, launched a campaign Tuesday to change Missouri's constitution. Since then, I am appalled by the selfishness and political naiveté of their campaign. This crusade seems driven by a combination of fear of failure and a determination to protect their investment even if it means destroying life.
The complexity of stem cell research precludes any attempt here to fully define the issue, but much information can be investigated at Stem Cell Information provided by the National Institutes of Health or Stem Cell strides may help resolve ethical delemmas, an article on the San Francisco Chronicle's SFGate.com. The Stowers campaign relies on deception and the shroud of complexity in order to pursue, first, the signatures needed to put their proposal on the ballot, and then their commercial motives for protection of their unethical research.
The antithesis of the failures of embryonic stem cells is the life changing success of adult stem cell research. Such research involves frequent breakthroughs and no ethical questions. Just Google "adult stem cells" for extensive information of success. Stem cell research is not all equal. Missourians must learn the difference between adult cells and embryonic cells. Only the embryonic method sacrifices one life with an empty promise to someday (they hope) save another. Adult stem cells are currently treating patients in more than 60 different therapies, while embryonic stem cells linger in their laboratories. Why must we pay such a price for imagined success when we are finding real-life cures without the price?
Another absurdity is the idea of writing science into the Missouri Constitution. Historically, technology advances have pushed the validity of life to earlier and earlier in the birth and conception process. The next technological or scientific breakthrough is likely to continue such findings. Stower wants us to amend our constitution so that when such advances occur in a year, or 5 years, or 7, we cannot acknowledge them because we have locked today's scientific limits into tomorrow's State Constitution. What irrationality!
Many people simply won't take the time to research this issue and expose it. Therefore, it is important that we aggressively speak the truth about the questions and failures surrounding embryonic stem cell research. Some will not acknowledge the ethical conflict, but they will quickly see the economic foolishness. Others may refuse to fully investigate the science, but will recognize how ridiculous it is to write science into the State Constitution. Stowers Institute is desperate, and I am told they will spend millions to protect their business plan. Don't be surprised if they employ others, especially the liberal media, in trying to stop debate by assaulting our constitution.
Editor's note: A rebuttal to Emery's former comments questioning the morality of stem cell research was made by William B. Neaves, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, MO. Find it here.
Comments