Left Brain/Right Brain: The government and stem cell research

By Lisa Coffey and James Gillen

Lisa: Wouldn't you love to take a relaxing vacation in the beautiful Islets of Langerhans? I used to dream about it. Then I took a course in endocrinology, and was surprised to learn that the Islets of Langerhans are not islands at all, but rather the clumps of cells responsible for producing insulin in the pancreas. Now we learn that evil, mad scientists mucking around with embryonic stem cells have figured out how to persuade them to morph into Islet cells. In short, science is on the verge of curing diabetes. Should the Rev. George W. Bush launch a preemptive strike to stop them before the evil spreads to a cure for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's?

James: I didn't know "reverend" was one of Bush's titles. I didn't think "doctor" was one either. Science is on the verge of curing diabetes, but I don't see as it's the government's job to fund every private or scientific project, especially given how out of control Bush's budget is already. By the same token, it isn't Bush's job to launch a "preemptive strike" against embryonic stem cell research. Those cells aren't going to become babies, and might as well be used for something constructive.

Lisa: Land o' Goshin'! I just now realized W pulled another fast one back in 2000. I remember my sweet little Parkinsonian mother in her wheelchair, trembling with anticipation when the president appeared on television to announce his policy of adherence to the religious right agenda restricting research to the paltry pre-existing lines of contaminated stem cells. "That goddamn son-of-a-bitch!" she remarked. "Don't worry, Mamaw," I told her. "The research will get done one way or another; there's just too much money in it for whoever figures out how to cure all these diseases." Funny how it didn't occur to me then that the president had just announced his plan to privatize stem cell research!

James: Huh? Is Bush supposed to be privatizing research or only allowing pre-existing cells to be used? 'Cause I don't think he has the right to ban the use of existing cells anyway. He certainly does have the right to determine whether the government will fund that research--which is why science shouldn't be too dependent on the government. Who knows what's going to be made "politically incorrect" to research under the next Democratic president. Or the next Republican, for that matter.

Lisa: By limiting research to those inadequate existing lines, as well as limiting funding, our president gave us all the impression that he was merely being moralistic and pro-life (pro-little-globs-of-stuff-in-a-petri-dish-life, as opposed to pro-millions-of-living-humans-suffering-from-incurable-diseases-life, that is.) This stance earned him the approval of his "Christian" buddies, and he didn't even have to mention the word "privatize" in order to effectively turn over the potential profits from the inevitable research to his corporate pals, thus ensuring that when cures are discovered, many suffering victims won't be able to afford them.

James: It's not really a good business model to set your prices so high that you can't have any customers. It's also not a good business model to have an entire industry either managed or financed by government. For one thing, that makes our medical research more "affordable" through subsidies and taxes that we all end up paying for--thus increasing the costs of medicine, creating much of the financial issue in the first place.

Lisa: It's not a good medical model to behave as if the alleviation of human suffering is a "business." Patients are not "customers," and cures for debilitating diseases should not be viewed as market commodities like refrigerators and deodorant. But don't worry--when they find a cure for Alzheimer's, there will be "customers" who can afford it--that top 1 percent of the population, for instance, although they may have to use up the profits from their recent tax cut to pay for it.

Now here's an idea! How about we pass a law making everyone who has taken an obstructionist position on stem cell research ineligible to avail themselves of any resultant cures? My father thinks the restriction should be extended to the children and grandchildren of obstructionists; but I think that's too harsh. After all, the sins of the fathers should not be visited upon the children.

James: No, actually that's a wonderful idea. I've long thought that the people who don't agree with a policy shouldn't have to fund it--and by the same token, they shouldn't get any public benefits from it. So the pro-lifers shouldn't get to use cures that were publicly financed through stem cell research.

The real problem is that by this logic, people who disagree with our defense spending and foreign policy need to move to Canada.