In an article on New Jersey Gov. Richard J. Codey’s plan to use $500 million in bond funds to expand stem-cell research.
The Catholic Church and opponents of abortion oppose the research, saying the destruction of human embryos for any reason is wrong. Social conservatives fear the next step may be the cloning of humans.
Last May, New Jersey established the nation’s first state-supported state-cell institute and announced plans to construct a building for it in New Brunswick. A state law lets researchers, public and private, experiment with cells from embryos and adults.
The law also will allow for "somatic cell nuclear transplantation," or therapeutic cloning, where genetic material is moved from one cell to another. Opponents say this procedure is the beginning of creating a human clone. [Source]
This is a strange sequence where first they say social conservative fear the cloning of humans as the next step and report that new law would allow for therapeutic cloning. Exactly what is the difference between therapeutic cloning and human cloning? The only difference is how long you allow the human clone to live. This is a strange society where cloning a human and then killing them shortly thereafter is not seen as problematic. Just call it therapeutic and all moral qualms are suppose to disappear.
The other strange thing is all the emphasis by different states on state sponsored embryonic stem-cell research. I don’t remember in recent years major pushes for funding of state sponsored research into cancer or heart disease related research. If state sponsored research is so important, and especially with limited funding, then wouldn’t you direct it at what kills the most people? Why exactly is it they want to pour money into areas of research that major pharmaceuticals are not pursuing? Then if you do decide that state sponsored stem-cell research is necessary why again is the focus almost entirely on embryonic instead of other morally licit ways of obtaining stem-cells? It seems the answer lies almost entirely in the realm of political advocacy and not science. On the basis of science alone there is currently no scientific rational for investing research dollars specifically into embryonic stem-cell research. Critics of ESCR are often accused of being against progress and science, yet these same advocates hawk something that is both scientifically dubious and has shown no progress in comparison to adult stem-cell research.
Two days ago in an article about Connecticut state legislator Larry Miller and his efforts to fund ESCR there, Larry Miller said:
"Connecticut is very sophisticated. We don’t have a lot of Dr. Frankensteins running around,"
The fictional Dr. Frankenstein cut up multiple dead people and then brought his creature to life. Dr. Frankenstein was much more ethical than the modern inhabitants of mad scientist research labs. The much scarier modern versions are willing to cut up living people to harvest their stem-cells so as to possibly keep some people living. Dr. Frankenstein research had the unintended consequence of causing death to some innocent people. In contrast the modern Dr. Frankensteins have the intended consequence of causing death to some innocent people. I think it is down right slanderous to disparage Dr. Frankenstein by comparing him to embryonic stem-cell research.