I was surprised. I have been emailing, signing petitions, and blogging especially heatedly since 2004, and certainly been active since 2000, and this is the first time the Bush White House has sent me a letter.
I was wary. This was heavy cream watermarked bond, and my name & address was not on a label. It looked typewritten, which means it must have been addressed with one of those high decibel daisy wheel printers.
I'm afraid I tore the envelope as I opened it. I had to know!
And what was so important that the White House sent me a letter?
Flip it!
It was about "the complex issue of human embryonic stem cell research."
First, they thanked me for writing to President Bush about the issue. I gotta be honest; I hadn't written them a letter. I've signed petitions, and sent emails to my Senators and Congresspeople, and maybe I did send the White House an email. I just don't remember exactly who and when I did it, but my activity was certainly peaking prior to the veto time.
It was a bit eerie, since I'd just posted a blog entry about it:
http://realityprinciples.blogspot.com/...
But it's not like my entries are cutting edge, frankly, stuff has to stew around in my head for a while.
But something triggered the letter. What does the White House want me to know? That Bush spent a
"great deal of time studying and reflecting on this issue." Which resulted in "a balanced policy shaped by deeply held beliefs regarding both the sanctity of human life and the potential and science and medicine to help humanity."
"In fact, this Administration became the first to make Federal Funds available for this research -- yet only on stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed. The Administration has also expanded funding for research of human non-embryonic stem cells, which can be drawn with no harm to the donor."
"President Bush believes that America's scientists have the ingenuity and skill to meet this challenge."
It sounds so reassuring. If I didn't know diddly about stem cell research. But I do know diddly.
The enclosed fact sheet: (read it more or less here)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/...
Emphasizes the non-embryonic stem cell research. What do the scientists say about it?
Rove waded into deeply contentious scientific territory, telling the Denver Post's editorial board that researchers have found "far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells."
But Rove's negative appraisal of embryonic stem cell research -- echoed by many opponents of funding for embryonic stem cells -- is inaccurate, according to most stem cell scientists.
"(Rove's) statement is just not true," said Dr. Michael Clarke, associate director of the stem cell institute at Stanford University, who in 2003 published the first study showing how adult stem cells replenish themselves.
If opponents of embryonic research object on moral grounds, "I'm willing to live with that," Clarke said, though he disagrees. But, he said, "I'm not willing to live with statements that are misleading."
Last week, the journal Science published a letter from three researchers criticizing the claim that adult stem cells are preferable to embryonic stem cells. The authors included Dr. Steven Teitelbaum of Washington University in St. Louis, who has used adult stem cells to treat bone diseases in children.
The authors wrote that the exaggerated claims for adult stem cells "mislead laypeople and cruelly deceive patients."
White House spokesman Ken Lisaius on Tuesday could not provide the name of a stem cell researcher who shares Rove's views on the superior promise of adult stem cells.
http://www2.ljworld.com/...
So much for adult stem cells.
The fact sheet claims "unprecedented support for medical research." Hmmm. The numbers sound good. What do the scientists say?
President Bush yesterday (February 6) sent to Congress a flat $28.6 billion budget request for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), freezing spending in Fiscal 2007 at the same level as this year. If enacted, it would be the fourth year in a row that NIH funding has failed to keep pace with the rate of biomedical inflation, estimated at 3.5% for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1, 2006.
http://www.the-scientist.com/...
And wasn't this the same administration which wants to cut funding for Christopher Reeves' Paralysis act, among others?
The President's Budget Threatens the Christopher & Dana Reeve Paralysis Resource Center (PRC)
February 24, 2006
On February 6th, President Bush released his proposed federal budget for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 to Congress. The President's budget proposes deep cuts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for health promotion and quality of life programs. These proposed cuts include a proposal to eliminate funding for CDC paralysis programs, which fund the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Resource Center (PRC), the NeuroRecovery Network, and Quality of Life Health Promotion Grants to non-profit organizations around the country.
On the heels of approving the first cut to NIH since 1970 in FY 2006, the President has proposed even deeper cuts in FY 2007. As a result, the total number of NIH-funded research project grants would drop by 642, or 2% below last year's level -- down a total of 15% since 2003. The President's budget would cut funding for 18 of the 19 institutes -- all, except the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
http://www.dejerine-sottas.com/...
That's what I thought. And I'm not impressed with the bold headline President Bush Is The First President To Provide Federal Funding For Embryonic Stem Cell Research since it wasn't even possible until 1998 and we all know how long grants take to wend their way through the system.
Sorry, I'm not impressed. The whole thing strikes me as distinctly weasely.
After all, isn't the problem that the blastocyts are destroyed? If that's so, why isn't anyone ponying up for the storage of the 100,000 blastocysts destroyed annually?
Lies, it is.
The recent news stories about getting a stem cell from a blastocyst are now being attacked because this is about extrapolating from existing science, not something that's nailed down yet. But it doesn't matter, does it? Because when the White House was asked to comment on this research, a White House spokesperson said, Though Ms. Lawrimore called it encouraging that scientists were moving away from destroying embryos, she said: "Any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical questions. This technique does not resolve those concerns."
Because science, facts, and reason do not matter.