During and since the funeral services for the late President Ronald Reagan, there’s been a good deal of discussion about stem cell research. Stem cells are animal cells that have the capacity to generate new cells. There are two types of stem cells – adult and embryonic. Bone marrow contains adult stem cells and bone marrow transplants have been used for decades to generate a healthy blood supply in patients with leukemia, lymphoma and immune disorders. The limitation of adult stem cells is that they can only generate similar cells. Bone marrow, where blood is produced, can only be used to generate blood products.
Embryonic stem cells, however, can be used to generate any type of cell in the body. In 1998, researchers at the University of Wisconsin were the first to develop lines of human embryonic stem cells that were capable of ongoing generation in the lab.
Here’s where the “issue” around stem-cell research comes in. Stem cells come from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst. A blastocyst is a mass of four to 50 undifferentiated human cells formed in the first few days after sperm fertilizes an egg. If implanted into a sufficiently nurturing uterus, the blastocyst can grow into a fetus and eventually be born as a child. If the embryonic stem cells are removed from the blastocyst, it stops developing. That’s the issue.
The right-to-life faction within George Bush’s conservative base sees embryonic stem cell research as – at best – a huge stumbling block to their crusade to re-outlaw abortion and – at worst – outright murder. Stem cell advocates counter that hundreds of thousands of frozen human embryos at fertility clinics – that could be used to generate stem cells – are otherwise destroyed.
To satisfy the anti-stem cell faction in his base, Mr. Bush in August 2001 banned the use of federal research money on any line of stem cells that was not then in existence. Mr. Bush’s decree brought stem-cell research in the U.S. to a virtual halt. It had been hoped stem cells, through the controlled mass production of certain kinds of tissue in the laboratory, would be a means to supercharge research into a host of medical conditions affecting as many as one in two Americans – everything from organ transplants to Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, heart disease and – Alzheimer’s.
This is where the Reagan family comes in. Although he played to the same right-to-life faction in the conservative base as does George Bush, Ronald Reagan spent the last decade of his life being slowly and cruelly destroyed by Alzheimer’s. No amount of stem-cell research could have spared Mr. Reagan, but Nancy Reagan and her children are outspoken advocates for stem-cell research, so other families may escape what they endured. The fact that the Reagans are heirs to one of the great conservatives of the 20th century makes their advocacy all the more striking.
Must all advocacy rise from personal experience? If a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, is a stem-cell advocate a right-to-lifer whose dad died of Alzheimer’s? More important, must we find some aspect of self-interest in an issue to take a stand?
Lynne Cheney, the vice president’s wife, recently took exception to Mr. Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The Cheneys’ younger daughter, Mary, is a lesbian. Are we safe to assume Mrs. Cheney would be lock-step with the president if her daughter were not marching to the beat of a different drum?
The Cheneys – and the Reagans and the Bushes – have always been adept at looking out for their own interests. They may have a kind word for Alzheimer’s patients or gays and lesbians or even Latinos because (in the case of Jeb Bush) they may marry into the family.
They will never be poor, however. They will never be laid off from their jobs or lose their health insurance of be unable to send their kids to college. If we have to wait until all the misfortunes of modern life are visited on politicians before something is done to address them, we’ve got a long wait.
It’s an election year. Go out and find the candidates who don’t have to be women to be feminists, who don’t have to be a person of color to be for civil rights, who don’t have to be poor to understand the struggle and indignity of poverty. Let the politicians know what’s on your agenda.
All Relative
During and since the funeral services for the late President Ronald Reagan, there’s been a good deal of discussion about stem cell research. Stem cells are animal cells that have the capacity to generate new cells. There are two types of stem cells – adult and embryonic. Bone marrow contains adult stem cells and bone marrow transplants have been used for decades to generate a healthy blood supply in patients with leukemia, lymphoma and immune disorders. The limitation of adult stem cells is that they can only generate similar cells. Bone marrow, where blood is produced, can only be used to generate blood products.
Embryonic stem cells, however, can be used to generate any type of cell in the body. In 1998, researchers at the University of Wisconsin were the first to develop lines of human embryonic stem cells that were capable of ongoing generation in the lab.
Here’s where the “issue” around stem-cell research comes in. Stem cells come from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst. A blastocyst is a mass of four to 50 undifferentiated human cells formed in the first few days after sperm fertilizes an egg. If implanted into a sufficiently nurturing uterus, the blastocyst can grow into a fetus and eventually be born as a child. If the embryonic stem cells are removed from the blastocyst, it stops developing. That’s the issue.
The right-to-life faction within George Bush’s conservative base sees embryonic stem cell research as – at best – a huge stumbling block to their crusade to re-outlaw abortion and – at worst – outright murder. Stem cell advocates counter that hundreds of thousands of frozen human embryos at fertility clinics – that could be used to generate stem cells – are otherwise destroyed.
To satisfy the anti-stem cell faction in his base, Mr. Bush in August 2001 banned the use of federal research money on any line of stem cells that was not then in existence. Mr. Bush’s decree brought stem-cell research in the U.S. to a virtual halt. It had been hoped stem cells, through the controlled mass production of certain kinds of tissue in the laboratory, would be a means to supercharge research into a host of medical conditions affecting as many as one in two Americans – everything from organ transplants to Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, heart disease and – Alzheimer’s.
This is where the Reagan family comes in. Although he played to the same right-to-life faction in the conservative base as does George Bush, Ronald Reagan spent the last decade of his life being slowly and cruelly destroyed by Alzheimer’s. No amount of stem-cell research could have spared Mr. Reagan, but Nancy Reagan and her children are outspoken advocates for stem-cell research, so other families may escape what they endured. The fact that the Reagans are heirs to one of the great conservatives of the 20th century makes their advocacy all the more striking.
Must all advocacy rise from personal experience? If a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, is a stem-cell advocate a right-to-lifer whose dad died of Alzheimer’s? More important, must we find some aspect of self-interest in an issue to take a stand?
Lynne Cheney, the vice president’s wife, recently took exception to Mr. Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The Cheneys’ younger daughter, Mary, is a lesbian. Are we safe to assume Mrs. Cheney would be lock-step with the president if her daughter were not marching to the beat of a different drum?
The Cheneys – and the Reagans and the Bushes – have always been adept at looking out for their own interests. They may have a kind word for Alzheimer’s patients or gays and lesbians or even Latinos because (in the case of Jeb Bush) they may marry into the family.
They will never be poor, however. They will never be laid off from their jobs or lose their health insurance of be unable to send their kids to college. If we have to wait until all the misfortunes of modern life are visited on politicians before something is done to address them, we’ve got a long wait.
It’s an election year. Go out and find the candidates who don’t have to be women to be feminists, who don’t have to be a person of color to be for civil rights, who don’t have to be poor to understand the struggle and indignity of poverty. Let the politicians know what’s on your agenda.
(c) Mark Floegel, 2004