New Jersey's actions regarding stem cell research have thrust the state into the spotlight. In early January, Gov. James E. McGreevey signed a controversial bill into law - authorizing medical facilities to study and research stem cells. It became the second state, after California, to support stem cell research.
This past Tuesday, New Jersey took an even bolder step and became the first state in the nation to finance this new scientific field of study. Gov. McGreevey announced in his yearly budget address that the state will provide $6.5 million for a new stem cell research institute. Rutgers University and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey will run the New Brunswick-based institute. On top of this $6.5 million, Gov. McGreevey wants to spend $50 million on human embryonic stem cell research over the next five years.
The support and funding of stem cell research will allow scientists to conduct experiments on stem cells derived from both embryos and adults. These scientists will be able to practice therapeutic cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer, which is when genetic material is transferred from one cell to another. The term "therapeutic cloning" should not be perceived as actually cloning or reproducing another human being. It simply means the nucleus of a patient's cell is inserted into a nucleus-free ovum. This process will eventually lead to the formation of a pre-embryo, or a blastocyte, from which stem cells are then extracted. The removed stem cells can be used to create and grow replacement tissues and organs to treat a vast amount of diseases.
Many non-science-oriented people are probably still pondering where the controversy lies. Well, opponents of such research do not support the new law because the extraction of the stem cells leads to the blastocyte dying, which is immoral in their minds. A bold and breakthrough technique cannot be immoral when it can ultimately be used to treat and cure literally millions of patients suffering from various ailments.
Armstrong Williams, a conservative columnist for townhall.com, shed some light on why opponents cite immorality concerns in the stem cell issue debate. In his article, posted Feb. 16, he wrote, "Each embryo these researchers harvest and dissect has a unique genetic code. That means they are using their scalpels to tear not at a random collection of cells, but at a genetically complete human being. This is no different from, say, abortion or murder." This argument appears ridiculous when you examine the other means by which society uses cells with a unique genetic code. The government already collects genetic material by swabbing inside the mouths of suspects involved in criminal cases. These cells collected also have a unique genetic code. Cells being genetically unique do not necessarily make them complete human beings. The cows that we slaughter to make burgers in fast food restaurants, as well as the potatoes farmers harvest, have unique genetic codes. Biology is all about life feeding from life itself. These burgers and potatoes help us survive at the end - just like therapeutic cloning.
The reality is that those people objecting to this sort of research are mainly religionists who are strictly against any type of cloning. This cannot occur in a democracy where we are supposed to separate church and state. Advancements in medicine are going to happen in the future, but if we hinder our own progress for the sake of religious beliefs, it means the country has failed at its duty of separating church and state.
Conservative religionists, such as Mr. Armstrong, like to argue on the basis of the sanctity of embryos. If embryos are so sacred, shouldn't the conservative religionists also be against in vitro fertilization? During the process of in vitro fertilization, approximately 80 percent of embryos do not survive. Nonetheless, they like to believe killing an embryo is wrong, immoral and unjustifiable. But in whose eyes is it immoral? God's eyes? According to the Bible, the pain that accompanies a woman giving birth to a child was because of Adam and Eve's wrongdoing. This was the same argument religionists were using years ago when anesthesia became available. They felt new medical innovations like that were wrong - again on grounds of religion. The same could have been said with contraception and certain vaccinations. They do not understand change sometimes can benefit mankind. It is not rational to arbitrarily stop medical researchers from furthering techniques in science that can lead to curing millions.
It is disingenuous to think that an embryo a few days old is of any sentimental value. There are no parental or emotional attachments to a clump of cells invisible to the naked eye. Alex Epstein, a contributing writer to the Ayn Rand Institution, explained these questioned pre-embryos very well in an article published last year on the organization's Web site. He wrote, "They have the potential to grow into human beings, but actual human beings are the ones dying for lack of this technology." The potential cannot outweigh an actual human being. A pre-embryo cannot be a human being when it is, in reality, microscopic bits of protoplasm in the developing stages to becoming an actual embryo.
Therapeutic cloning culminates in the better life of another being. As far as I'm concerned, this defines the very definition of morality. I do not want to belittle the debate emerging over stem cell research and cloning. It is important that all sides understand what is best for our society. In any debate - but especially ones in which can result in happier and healthier lives - it is wrong to bring in God's will to the argument.
Amit Patel is a Rutgers College junior majoring in political science. His column, "No Limit with Amit," appears on alternating Thursdays. He welcomes comments at kingamit@msn.com.
Be the first to comment on this article!