BTW Dogger, this is yet another thing W got right. You asked for one...care to concede?

BreakPoint with Charles Colson
Commentary #040616 - 06/16/2004
The Wrong Legacy: A Cause Reagan Wouldn't Have Supported

The late, revered President Ronald Reagan is being enlisted in an all-out
campaign to lift President Bush's restrictions on embryonic stem-cell
research. Even before President Reagan died on June 5, fifty-eight U.S.
senators signed a letter asking President Bush to remove those restrictions.
Now many of those senators, from Democrat Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) to
Republican Orrin Hatch (Utah), are pointing to Reagan's long illness and
death as the perfect justification for why such research is needed.

But embryonic stem-cell research requires creating a human embryo and killing
it. As President Bush recognizes, this raises profound moral objections. And
what the embryonic research advocates are forgetting is that President Reagan
strongly agreed with President Bush.

NEW YORK TIMES columnist William Safire, while invoking Reagan's name to
promote the cause of embryonic stem-cell research, writes that Reagan's
views on this will never be known. Well, that's not so. A former White
House assistant has given me a copy of a draft executive order that Reagan
was working on shortly before he left office. The order would have "continue[d]
and broaden[ed] the moratorium on NIH grants for certain types of fetal
experimentation," a moratorium put into effect in 1988 by an assistant
secretary in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Reagan took
a clear stand against research that would harm or destroy "any living child
in utero," in all stages of development in which scientists were then able
to experiment on them.

And as Reagan's national security adviser and close personal friend William
Clark pointed out in the NEW YORK TIMES, "After the charter expired for the
Departments of Health, Education and Welfare's ethical advisory board --
which in the 1970s supported destructive research on human embryos -- he
[that is, Reagan] began a de facto ban on federal financing of embryo
research that he held to throughout his presidency."

Clark knew his friend's mind on this subject very well. "In his famous 'Evil
Empire' speech of March 1983 -- which most recall as solely an indictment of
the Soviet Union -- Ronald Reagan spoke strongly against the denigration of
innocent human life," writes Clark. "And [Reagan] favored bills in Congress
that would have given every human being -- at all stages of development --
protection as a person under the 14th Amendment." Reagan also favored a Human
Life Amendment which defines life as beginning at conception.

In addition, Clark points out, Reagan "would have asked the marketplace
question: If human embryonic research is so clearly promising as the
researchers assert, why aren't private investors putting [their] money
into it, as they are in adult stem-cell research?" The answer is obvious:
Embryonic research is not only far less ethical than adult stem-cell
research, but it's also far less promising. Score another one for the
Gipper.

It's certainly understandable that Nancy Reagan, after the terrible ordeal
she's been through, might look with favor on any possibility of defeating
Alzheimer's. It's even understandable that others, misled by extravagant
promises and blind to what's really going on, are grasping at the same
straw. But they ought to argue their case on its merits -- what few merits
it has -- and not enlist in their cause the name of Ronald Reagan, who stood
foursquare against the exploitation and destruction of human life in any
stage. That is one legacy he would have never wanted to leave.

For printer-friendly version, visit <a href='http://www.breakpoint.org' target='_blank'>http://www.breakpoint.org</a> and simply click
on Today's Commentary at the top of the homepage. The printer-friendly link is
on the left-hand column.

Copyright &copy; 2004 Prison Fellowship THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT.
THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. "BreakPoint with
Chuck Colson" is a daily commentary on news and trends from a Christian
perspective. Heard on more than 1000 radio outlets nationwide, BreakPoint
transcripts are also available on the Internet. BreakPoint is a production
of The Wilberforce Forum, a division of Prison Fellowship: 1856 Old Reston
Avenue, Reston, VA 20190.

FURTHER READING & INFORMATION
William Clark, "For Reagan, All Life Was Sacred," NEW YORK TIMES,
11 June 2004. Free registration required.
<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/opinion/11CLAR.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/opinion/11CLAR.html</a>

Read President Reagan's March 1983 "Evil Empire" speech.
<a href='http://www.presidentreagan.info/speeches/empire.cfm' target='_blank'>http://www.presidentreagan.info/speeches/empire.cfm</a>

Rick Weiss, "Stem Cells An Unlikely Therapy for Alzheimer's,"
WASHINGTON POST, 10 June 2003, A03.
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29561-2004Jun9.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...1-2004Jun9.html</a>

Shankar Vedantam, "Reagans' Experience Alters Outlook for Alzheimer's
Patients," WASHINGTON POST, 14 June 2004, A01.
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39072-2004Jun13.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun13.html</a>

Pippa Wysong, "Bone marrow cells may heal brain: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's
patients could become their own donors," MEDICAL POST, 25 May 2004.
<a href='http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?content=20040523_103833_5092' target='_blank'>http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/artic...523_103833_5092</a>

Sue Pleming, "Laura Bush Says Cannot Support Stem Cell Research," Reuters,
9 June 2004.
<a href='http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;' target='_blank'>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;</a>
jsessionid=AR5G1BHAOCSCUCRBAE0CFFA?type=politicsNews&storyID=5383174

James Gordon Meek, "Gloves off in Reagan stem war," NEW YORK DAILY NEWS,
14 June 2004.
<a href='http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/202743p-174914c.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/202...3p-174914c.html</a>

Wesley J. Smith, "Cell Wars," NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE, 8 June 2004.
<a href='http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/smith200406081105.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/smit...00406081105.asp</a>

Associated Press, "Senators press for stem-cell research," WASHINGTON TIMES,

8 June 2004.
<a href='http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040607-115614-7756r.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...15614-7756r.htm</a>

Christopher Smith, "Hatch urges Bush to back stem cell research,"
SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, 8 June 2004.
<a href='http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jun/06082004/utah/173626.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jun/06082004/ut...utah/173626.asp</a>

Ronald Reagan, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation," HUMAN LIFE REVIEW,

originally published in 1983, reprinted in 1984.
<a href='http://www.humanlifereview.com/reagan/reagan_conscience.html' target='_blank'>http://www.humanlifereview.com/reagan/reag...conscience.html</a>

William Safire, "Reagan's Next Victory," NEW YORK TIMES, 7 June 2004
(reprinted by the HOUSTON CHRONICLE).
<a href='http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2614914' target='_blank'>http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/e...itorial/2614914</a>

Eric Cohen, "Stem Cells and the Senate," NATIONAL REVIEW, 25 May 2004.
(Dozens of U.S. Senators have signed a letter to President Bush, demanding
that he change the policy in place since 2001 regulating the federal
funding of embryonic stem-cell research. Ethics and Public Policy Center
scholar and New Atlantis editor Eric Cohen explains how the advocates of
such research have been distorting the facts and why the key questions
are fundamentally ethical.)
<a href='http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2106/pub_detail.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.210.../pub_detail.asp</a>

The Editors of The New Atlantis, "Do Embryos Vote?," THE NEW ATLANTIS,
Number 4, Winter 2004, 98-101.
<a href='http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/4/soa/embryos.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/4/so...soa/embryos.htm</a>

Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Reaganite by Association? His Family Won't Allow
It," NEW YORK TIMES, 15 June 2004. Free registration required.
<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/politics/15memo.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/politics/15memo.html</a>

BreakPoint Commentary No. 040608, "The Question of Good and Evil: The
Legacy of Ronald Reagan."
<a href='http://www.pfm.org/BPtemplate.cfm?Section=BreakPoint_Commentaries1&CONTENTID=12615&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm' target='_blank'>http://www.pfm.org/BPtemplate.cfm?Section=...tentDisplay.cfm</a>


Leslie Carbone, "Mourning in America," BREAKPOINT ONLINE, 11 June 2004.
<a href='http://www.pfm.org/BPtemplate.cfm?Section=BreakPoint_Home&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=12647' target='_blank'>http://www.pfm.org/BPtemplate.cfm?Section=...ContentID=12647</a>


Lisa Barrett Mann, "An Embryonic Approach," WASHINGTON POST, 6 April 2004,
HE01.
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52745-2004Apr5.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...5-2004Apr5.html</a>

Dr. David A. Prentice, STEM CELLS AND CLONING (Benjamin-Cummings, 2002).
An introduction to this controversial research. Call 1-877-322-5527 to order.

NOTE: Referral to websites not produced by Prison Fellowship, the Wilberforce Forum,
and
BreakPoint is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an

endorsement of the sites' content.

MAKE A DIFFERENCE
BreakPoint depends on the support of its listeners and readers to continue
its Christian worldview ministry. Give to BreakPoint during June and up to
$150,000 will be matched dollar-for-dollar thanks to a generous donor.
<a href='https://www.pfm.org/BPTemplate.cfm?Section=Donate4&Template=/CustomSource/PublicDonation.cfm&ID=1002' target='_blank'>https://www.pfm.org/BPTemplate.cfm?Section=...ion.cfm&ID=1002</a>

I am no scientist, no expert in this area, but I have read that stem cells can be gleaned from human fat cells. Does anyone know anything about this, whether it is true or whether if true there is some problem with proceeding in that direction? We seem to have a lot of extra fat in this country, and if it is possible to proceed in this fashion, well.....

I am glad that Bush has thusfar declined Nancy Reagan's invitation to expand the practice of killing embryos in order to "harvest" stem cells. I suppose it is understandable that she would take such a position, but I am surprised and saddened that that she is apparently unable to see the consequences of such an approach to the beginnings of human life.

Anytime you see an argument from any group with an axe to grind, take whatever they say with a large grain of salt. So, I typed in "adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells" and did a google search and looked for anything relevant to the debate from a peer reviewed publication. The following was what I found from June 21, 2002 in "Nature":

Quote:US scientists have reversed the symptoms of Parkinson's disease in rats using stem cells from mouse embryos1. Another team has compelling evidence that they have isolated a stem cell from adult human bone marrow that can produce all the tissue types in the body, from blood to muscle to nerve2.

Stem cells from embryos were known to give rise to every type of cell. Those from adults were thought to have a more limited repertoire.

Researchers hope to use stem cells to repair or replace diseased or damaged organs, leading to new treatments for human disorders that are currently incurable, including diabetes, spinal-cord injury and brain diseases.

The new reports may re-fuel the debate in the US Senate over whether to permit the cloning of human embryos for medical research, which stalled earlier this week. US scientists are fighting to be able to harvest stem cells from human embryos. Opponents, such as anti-abortion groups, claim that such studies are unnecessary because adult stem cells are an equally versatile alternative.

Today's papers do not settle the adult-versus-embryo dispute: they suggest that both could yield promising therapies. Ultimately, different cell types might best treat different diseases, so most scientists advocate continued research on both types. "Parallel work is the efficient way to go," says stem-cell researcher Neil Theise of New York University.

And from a publication sponsored by the Australian Academy of Science and published in October, 2003:

Quote:Most researchers believe it is essential to carry out research on both embryonic and adult stem cells. Both have advantages and drawbacks. Researchers cannot yet say which types of cells will work best. In general, the advantage of starting with embryonic stem cells is that they can be grown in large quantities, but at some point the researcher has to train these cells to become dopamine-producing brain cells or insulin-producing pancreatic cells, and that is the difficult part.

On the other hand, adult stem cells taken from the brain or pancreas are already programmed to make brain or pancreas cells. The problem is they don't grow very well in the culture dish. And it is difficult to procure spare adult stem cells.  At the moment, researchers use cadavers to obtain brain and pancreatic stem cells.

What I would note is that, contrary to the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth you hear from the Christian conservatives on this issue, scientists are not deliberately just making embryos. Most of them come from infertility clinics. When clinics do an in vitro fertilization, many more eggs are fertilized than are needed. Typically these are stored for up to 5 years. Bear in mind that egg and sperm have joined so, according to the Christian right, it is a human. What, pray tell, happens to these embryos? You guessed it. They end up in the biological waste bin. The ethical choice then is not whether to collect embryonic stem cells but whether to collect them or toss the embryos in the trash can.

MAKO Wrote:Anytime you see an argument from any group with an axe to grind, take whatever they say with a large grain of salt. So, I typed in "adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells" and did a google search and looked for anything relevant to the debate from a peer reviewed publication. The following was what I found from June 21, 2002 in "Nature":

Quote:US scientists have reversed the symptoms of Parkinson's disease in rats using stem cells from mouse embryos1. Another team has compelling evidence that they have isolated a stem cell from adult human bone marrow that can produce all the tissue types in the body, from blood to muscle to nerve2.

Stem cells from embryos were known to give rise to every type of cell. Those from adults were thought to have a more limited repertoire.

What I would note is that, contrary to the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth you hear from the Christian conservatives on this issue, scientists are not deliberately just making embryos. Most of them come from infertility clinics. When clinics do an in vitro fertilization, many more eggs are fertilized than are needed. Typically these are stored for up to 5 years. Bear in mind that egg and sperm have joined so, according to the Christian right, it is a human. What, pray tell, happens to these embryos?

Yes, well maybe you should have paused to consider what the original commentary said, and combine it w/ your own thoughts.

The original commentary suggested that the bias favored embryonic stem cells.

Moreover, the folks w/ the axe to grind are those who are invested in embryonic stem cells, but now can't get gov't money.

The concession that adult stem cells do show promise is akin to a Red Sox fan grumbling that the Yankees did "alright" by cleverly acquiring ARod.

Finally, these same Christian conservatives are against the practice at infertility clinics that you refer to. You bring this up somehow like it has been ignored, or that this fact makes things "alright". Your thin, holey logic probably works in the field of law, but some folks are a bit more rigorous than that.