IN THEORY:On stem-cell research

Yaron Brook, the executive director of the Irvine-based Ayn Rand Institute, recently said the government should not fund science research because it leads to messy political battles such as the one over embryonic stem-cell research. He went on to criticize President George Bush’s veto of stem-cell research. “But so long as it is involved, it must scrupulously respect the separation of church and state. Its funding decisions must be made on rationally demonstrable, not faith-based, grounds. Bush’s veto clearly violates this principle.” Meanwhile, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a day after Bush’s veto, ordered a loan of up to $150 million to California’s stem-cell research institute. Research advocates praised the action but the governor also drew rebukes from critics who called it a political stunt. Voters approved $3 billion in bonds two years ago to fund stem-cell research but litigation has paralyzed bond sales.

Should the government get out of the business of funding science research to avoid church/state issues like the stem-cell debate?

From my understanding there are two positions on stem-cell research from the scientific point of view. According to President Bush’s statement on Aug. 9, 2001, federal funds for stem-cell research derived from umbilical cord blood and placentas are available. This is the first statement supporting the government’s position on stem-cell research. The second statement involves the issue of religion and the government because it reads as follows: “Research involving the creation or new destruction of human embryos will not be eligible for federal financing.”

What are stem cells? A stem cell is a special kind of cell that has a unique capacity to renew itself and to give rise to specialized cell types. Scientists believe that stem-cell research will eventually yield therapies capable of treating stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and a host of other incurable diseases. This would happen a lot sooner if the federal government would finance embryonic stem-cell research. However, this raises religious, moral and ethical questions.

Easy answers are not readily found. Sometimes there is no connection between science, ethics, religion, law and public society. Sometimes there is. Twentieth century history has taught us that the impeachment of President Clinton, judged on extramarital affairs, had nothing to do with his effectiveness as a president. He was morally wrong, but history will judge him as a good president with good governmental policies. A second example can be stated as follows: it is still debated in history this week ? which commemorates the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ? that the government was governmentally correct, but morally wrong. We saved American lives by killing Japanese. A third example, as a rabbi showing the conflict between government and moral decisions, is the failure of the Roosevelt Administration during World War II to save Jewish lives by giving the Germans money for each individual life near the end of the war. But some argue that saving Jews would have lengthened the war.

So, in conclusion, government and morals often conflict. President Bush uses federal money now for NASA to explore the outer perimeters of the universe, but will not use federal money to look at a human cell. Scientifically, which is more important, finding life on another planet such as the amoeba, or saving thousands of lives on earth? President Bush must rethink this. President Bush must weigh the lives that can be saved by using these embryos constructively versus the non-use of embryonic stem cells that are slated already for destruction anyway. In his wisdom, against the advice of Congress and many members of his party, I believe that he has made the wrong decision. Our governor disagrees with him and agrees with me as well. This is President Bush’s first veto, but not his first wrong decision. I wish it were.

Rabbi Marc Rubenstein

Temple Isaiah

Newport Beach

What is the purpose of government? Government is an interrelationship of authority, laws, customs, agencies, organizations, institutions and politics. This includes religion and science, which should be complementary, not antithetical, and “politics” means “the total complex of relations between people in society.”

Understandings of the purposes of government will inevitably be varied and consensus arises from diverse attitudes.

For me, the Preamble to our Constitution says it best: “To form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty ? “ But we disagree about exactly what that should mean and how to achieve these goals, don’t we?

I was born 60 years ago tomorrow. Then, I was publicly and legally adopted according to a set of governmental regulations designed to “promote the general welfare.” But those laws and “total complex of relations between people in society” are no longer in effect. Scientific advancements, attitudes toward health care and strength of public support for varieties of practices have changed dramatically in my 60 years. While I rejoice for advancements, I must say that I am glad they were what they were in 1946!

Contemporary science and strong public support (70%-plus) for embryonic stem-cell research seem to me to be so substantial that such changes will be inevitable in our national agenda, both public and private. Government funding is part of rightly regulating scientific research publicly. It seems that every American has a personal and private story to tell that would be affected by stem-cell research. Our president must have significant reasons for exercising his first veto during five and a half years in office on the embryonic stem-cell research bill sent to him recently by Congress. Our governor must have motivating opinions to the contrary behind his most recent support of California’s stem-cell research institute. While I agree more with our governor on this one, I admire both him and our president for acting as they thought and believed best.

Are not such individual differences and varieties of corporate actions the way we work out our will as a people and determine together what the purposes of government are?

(The Very Rev’d Canon)

Peter D. Haynes

Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

Federal money should continue to be spent on science research even though the process required to finally get the funds to the laboratory can be long, messy and controversial. In a democracy, taxes are to be spent on the public good which is decided upon primarily by our representatives. It would be a giant leap backward to disqualify science research from federal funding given its tremendous power to effect good in the lives of so many.

When this promising research becomes a national priority, funding must come from all available resources ? state and federal coffers, private research foundations, religious and charitable organizations and philanthropists. Just think of how long it took us to take AIDS research seriously and how many millions around the world are now benefiting despite the many years of political battles.

I trust that the debates between Bush, Schwarzenegger, and even the Ayn Rand Institute, will continue to inform us about the promise and ethical considerations of stem-cell research and may even urge more of us to vote in November.

In the Zen Buddhist tradition, practitioners use the parameters of time, place, circumstance, and amount to guide moral decisions. In the urgency to protect the “right to life,” in the case of stem-cells, is our government proportionately advocating for all those who may be helped by a whole-hearted research effort for cures? I believe the time is overdue to fully fund this research. After all, anyone who wishes can refuse the benefits of such research should it be successful in the treatment of numerous diseases and injuries.

This reminds me of my very favorite children’s story, “The Little Ren Hen.”

“And who will help me plant the wheat?” said the Little Red Hen. “Not I,” quacked the Duck, oinked the Pig, mewed the Cat. Fortunately, in the case of medical science research, the final harvest reaches far and wide.

Rev. Carol Aguilar

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

To say the government should get out of the funding of research to avoid such issues is to say that there really are no moral grounds for science to worry about violating. Yaron Brook claims that science could move unhindered in research if it were free of the bonds of government interference. Does he really believe that scientists are capable of self regulation and should be free to experiment however they wish, as long as the money is available? Science is important, but so are morals. The only reason we have government is to enforce the standards of morality that we all agree upon. The problem, in this situation, is that there is no agreement in our national community as to the morality of using the tissue of unborn babies for research. I believe it is the mandate of the government to oversee the general welfare of the public. If they don’t, then our society will fall into chaos. We can see this happening in so many parts of the world right now.

It is the research that changes the quality of life for all Americans that should be funded by the government. Just because one hundred people, or a thousand people, will be helped does not mean that it is moral for even a few to suffer to pay for their healing. New stem-cell research is happening on a regular basis, and new sources of stem cells are being found that are making this argument nothing more than a political firestorm.

Lead Pastor

Ric Olsen

The Beacon

Anaheim