The Politics of Hope
Three weeks ago, on June 20th, the politics of hope clashed with the politics of fear and lost. For those who dare to dream, President Bush’s recent veto of embryonic stem cell research is a nightmare.
As the father of a young quadriplegic living the life of paralysis, I am incensed by the ongoing waste of precious time. Yesterday, former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. He detailed the suppression of informed consent on science during his term as the nation’s chief advisor on public health. Though his testimony was chilling, this is not news to those of us knowledgeable about chronic illnesses or injuries.
The Politics of Hope
Three weeks ago, on June 20th, the politics of hope clashed with the politics of fear and lost. For those who dare to dream, President Bush’s recent veto of embryonic stem cell research is a nightmare.
As the father of a young quadriplegic living the life of paralysis, I am incensed by the ongoing waste of precious time. Yesterday, former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. He detailed the suppression of informed consent on science during his term as the nation’s chief advisor on public health. Though his testimony was chilling, this is not news to those of us knowledgeable about chronic illnesses or injuries.
Nonetheless, it validates publicly what we have advocated for the last six years: the current administration willfully misinforms American families about science. With respect to stem cells, our president not only deceives, he scolds us with the muddled principles of his priorities. The indignation I feel, however, is more than personal. Investing in the hope of stem cell science also serves the strategic interest of our country.
The president conveniently ignores that long-term healthcare poses a threat to our national security. Yet, it is equal to, if not greater, than the global war on terror. The adversaries are already here in great numbers. Their weapons are devastating. Juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and spinal cord injuries, along with numerous other chronic conditions, terrorize our nation.
In 2005, healthcare spending in the United States reached $2 trillion. By 2015 it will double and be 20% of gross domestic product. Care for chronic illness and injury is the number one driver of rising medical expenses. Spinal cord injury alone, costs our country $9.7 billion annually just for routine care.
Fortunately, we have an established methodology to fight this foe. For years, Universities, biotech, and medical practitioners enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with the National Institutes of Health. Public investment encouraged private development to serve the nation’s well being. The best defense against illness and injury derived from the unfettered promotion of science.
Congress doubled the NIH budget in the late 90s. The intent was to fuel this engine of discovery. For many, there was hope to reverse immune reactions in diabetic children or even achieve the impossible: cure those with spinal cord injuries.
Unfortunately, all this derailed in the aftermath of 9/11. Fear supplanted our hope. Bio-terrorism research now sidetracks resources from proactive healthcare studies. Our foray into Iraq creates fiscal pressures leading to flat lining of the NIH budget. Furthermore, the NIH labors under the burden of political interference.
President Bush’s policy on embryonic stem cells is the most obvious example of this skewed ideology. Scientific inquiry, on the verge of a Renaissance only 10 years ago, stalls due to influence from the religious right. Many scientists expect stem cell research to transform the practice of medicine. Yet, what should be the century of the cure is beginning with the decade of the faith healer.
The president contends that, “Federal money should not be used for research involving the destruction of human embryos.” But, this begs the question: How does this ethical position balance with federal funding of the atrocities in Iraq?
Such situational piety typifies the schizophrenia of compassionate conservatives. Sadly, by thwarting inquiries into human biology, the president stifles the best instincts of our humanity: compassion and the pursuit of knowledge.
There are no shortcuts to the scientific method of trial and error. Regrettably, though, there are plenty of diversions. The president’s latest executive order, introduced along with his veto, decorates his negation with the ribbons and bows of empty promises. It may assuage his party’s guilty conscience but it cannot conceal the ongoing delay of research.
The news cycle moves quickly. No doubt Bush’s already dismal polling numbers did not take a hit just because he dismissed hope for his most at-risk citizens. The advance of our country’s knowledge of how stem cells develop, differentiate, and perform, however, will continue to lag. Much of the rest of the world forges ahead while we await more imaginative leadership.
Scientific research in the United States can ease the threat posed by long-term healthcare. But the restrictions of domestic policy, along with wasted resources in Iraq, imprison its potential. Getting people up and out of their wheelchairs and stopping the progression of Parkinson’s disease remain visions of cures in limbo. The solution, if this is to happen, rests with a revitalized National Institutes of Health, invigorated by the politics of hope.