CBS News, in its radio broadcasts and its Web site, mischaracterizes the nature of the Stem Cell bill just passed by the House of Representatives:
Ignoring President Bush’s veto threat, the House voted Tuesday to lift limits on embryonic stem cell research, a measure supporters said could accelerate cures for diseases but opponents viewed as akin to abortion.
Here’s the text:
`(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo).
`(b) Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
`(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision
of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall
conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo).`(b) Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
`(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro
fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility
treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals
seeking such treatment.
`(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and
through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment,
it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman
and would otherwise be discarded.
`(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment
donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving
any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
`(c) Guidelines- Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the
Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to carry out this section.`(d) Reporting Requirements- The Secretary shall annually
prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a
report describing the activities carried out under this section during
the preceding fiscal year, and including a description of whether and
to what extent research under subsection (a) has been conducted in
accordance with this section.’.
The limits are on government funding of stem cell research, not on stem cell research in and of itself by any party who wants to fund that research on its own–such as universities or pharma companies. However, those programs haven’t been eligible for federal government funding.
It’s unclear whether the media who report this are intentionally blurring this distinction to make the new bill into a fight for freedom against government oppression of scientific expression instead of what it is, a fight for freedom to spend government money. Perhaps the blurring is unintentional; some people in the media could very well believe there is/should be no action but government action.
Call me unconservative, but I’m not against this bill for the moral reason that groups of human cells are fully living humans who should have representation in the legislature. Instead, I oppose it for the moral reason that it’s the Federal government spending money on things the private sector should handle.
(Submitted to the Outside the Beltway Traffic Jam.)
UPDATE: Two other conservatives weigh in:
- At INDC Journal, Bill thinks President Bush’s veto would put the United States behind other countries. Kind of like how Boeing is falling behind Airbus, if you ask me, but then again, perhaps he’s right. Are universities and private sector companies out of the habit of expending their own capital on Research and Development without the government teat at which to suckle?
- At Just One Minute, the blogger/narrator agrees that the government should fund this research, but does recognize that the bill expands government programs, not curtails them.
