Stem cell opponents must clarify arguments

When President Bush vetoed legislation to expand federally
supported embryonic stem cell research last Wednesday, he only
severed the lines of communication between Americans who support
scientific expansion and those who have yet to explain why they
don’t.

On July 18, the Senate voted 63-37 to pass the bill that would
allow more federal money to be spent on stem cell research, which
faced restrictions by Bush that were imposed in 2001. A day later,
the president issued the first veto in the six years he has been in
office.

Bush defended his veto by saying, “I felt like crossing
this line would be a mistake, and once crossed we would find it
almost impossible to turn back.” While he addressed the
press, Bush was surrounded by a group of parents holding babies
born through in vitro fertilization using so-called “adopted
embryos.”

Those who oppose stem cell research look to these children, who
were born out of the type of stem cell embryos that are used for
research for such diseases as Parkinson’s disease. Those who
support the research underscore the simple fact that no other
potential therapy ““ including adult stem cells ““ is
nearly as promising for curing life-threatening ailments.

According to Bush and others who oppose the use of stem cells,
the sanctity of life trumps what they deem to be ethically
questionable science. But why?

Considering the majority of Republican senators and
representatives who support the bill, making this a nonpartisan
issue, Bush and his constituency must do a better job of explaining
their logic.

Those who oppose the bill maintain that using embryonic cells
for research equates to killing a potential life, which sounds
familiar to the abortion debate. The stem cell issue, however,
tests the boundaries of the right-to-life argument in a way that
abortion never has.

Stem cells used in research typically come from fertility
clinics, which produce more embryos then they can use. This is
because fertility clinics are trying to help people have as many
babies as possible. And the embryos used for research are those
earmarked for the trash anyway.

Those who ardently oppose stem cell research haven’t
elaborated on the reasons why the science is ethically shoddy.
Perhaps there is a legitimate argument to be made. Until it is
made, the rest of the country is left to wonder why scientific
growth is being stunted.

Mike Pence, R-Ind., is one of the congressman who voted against
the bill, which passed in the House of Representative in 2005.
Pence told The New York Times that “the issue is whether or
not it is morally right to use the taxpayer dollars of millions of
pro-life Americans who find this research morally
objectionable.”

Pence, like Bush, follows hollow logic with catchy talking
points rather than sit down at the national table and discuss the
issue at hand.

Both of them are evading a bigger question, and it has nothing
to with the perceived gap between the faith-based community and the
fact-based community.

The question is how to open dialogue about divisive issues
involving religion and science. Such discussion should show that
the nurturing of religion doesn’t mean the complete
destruction of science, and vice versa.

Bush has not shown he can do this.

Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of the
Daily Bruin Editorial Board.