|
|
|
Proposition 71 and the Debate on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research
by Clare Cameron
The issue of embryonic stem cell research, and the extent to which the federal government should support it, has been a key issue of the current presidential election. It therefore seems fitting that come November, Californians will be choosing more than just a president, but will also be voting on the "Embryo Cloning and Stem Research Bond Act." More commonly referred to as "Proposition 71," the act authorizes the state to issue $3 billion in bonds over the next ten years to put towards embryonic stem cell research. While the Bush administration has placed limits on public money spent on stem cell research, Proposition 71 would place the initiative firmly in the hands of the states, and set California at the forefront of this research field.
Although California is the first to propose funding on this scale, it is not the first state to address the issue of stem cell research. In May 2004, the governor of New Jersey, James McGreevey, signed legislation that supported the creation of a state-sponsored stem cell research facility. Harvard University has recently established an institute for the investigation of stem cells and recently requested permission from the Ethics Review Board to clone embryos as a source of stem cells.
The extent of these non-federal government initiatives can be explained by the enormous therapeutic potential that stem cell research offers. It is estimated that approximately seventy diseases and disorders could benefit from discoveries relating to human embryonic stem cell research - these ailments include diabetes, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. In 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health estimated that 18.2 million Americans are living with diabetes, 1.5 million with Parkinson's, and 4.5 million with Alzheimer's. Stem cell research thus has the potential to help relieve the suffering of more than 24.2 million people in the U.S. alone.
Proponents of the bill in California argue that, in addition to relieving the suffering of millions, embryonic stem cell research would be financially advantageous to California in the long-run, despite the $3 billion proposed price tag. The development of novel therapies that in effect cure diseases that normally require persistent and intensive treatment would substantially lower California's health care costs. Additionally, proponents argue that the revenue generated from the new companies that would emerge to transform new scientific discoveries into commercially beneficial products would outweigh any costs.
Despite these arguments, opponents to the bill have their own economic justification to support their cause. The budget deficits of the state of California are a legitimate cause for concern, and some believe the allocation of $3 billion devoted entirely to stem cell research is a luxury the state cannot afford. Additionally, opponents believe the potential reduction in health care costs is nothing more than a fallacy, placing the potential cost of stem cell therapy at $200,000.
More controversial, but not less contested, is the rejection of stem cell research on ethical grounds. Those who oppose stem cell research on ethical premises are not likely to be convinced otherwise. The Catholic Church is often thought of as the institution most fundamentally opposed to stem cell research - according to the Vatican, embryonic stem research is deplorable and threatens the fabric of civilization. Nearly four years ago, as the debate on embryonic stem cell research was heating up, Pope John Paul II affirmed, "To [the list of world injustices] we must add irresponsible practices of genetic engineering, such as the cloning and use of human embryos for research…A civilization based on love and peace must oppose these experiments, which are unworthy of man."
If fundraising is any indication of the future outcome of the vote on Proposition 71, those opposed should be concerned. According to The New York Times, "[o]pponents have raised about $150,000, much of it from the state and national Catholic Church…," while supporters are outspending them by a margin of 20 to 1. Nancy Reagan, republican advocate of stem cell research, believes that stem cell research "may provide our scientists with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp." She is one of many powerful and wealthy people driving support for Proposition 71.
Where in this debate does Californian Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stand? While he supports stem cell research, the ongoing debate in his state has yet to serve as an impetus for his declaring an official stance on Proposition 71.
It is difficult to fathom a potential cure for millions of people halted by financial concerns. For some, however, it is equally difficult to fathom the destruction of human embryos as a means to this end. This November, Californian voters will have to determine the fate of $3 billion and perhaps millions of people; the outcome of the vote, much like the presidential election, is in no way clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
