Captain's Quarters describes the current status of stem cell research in the USA.
It's generally very good, but I think Captain Ed overstepped in one area. While he's correct that claims of a ban on research are blatantly false, Kerry's phrase "ideologically-driven restrictions on stem-cell research" strikes me as fair. Current U.S. stem cell policy does prohibit federal funding for certain kinds of stem cell research. That is a restriction, and while the Captain presents the grounds quite fairly it's also fair to call them ideological.
UPDATE: VT and I work together in the comments (!!!), as we find 2 additional links from each candidate that add a lot of useful information. Drop in and see for yourself.
OK, how about claims against live organ removal of death row inmates during (awake and aware) vivasection as "ideologically-driven restrictions" instead of cruel and unusual punishment?
Joe;
The article you link to does not provide any references to their claim that Kerry supports lifting a "ban" on "stem cell research". It is an inaccurate overstatement of Kerry's position.
Many articles written on the subject have themselves used the words "lift the ban" but then go on to quote Kerry as stating he wants to lift "restrictions" or "limits". As far as I can tell, he is not trying to purposefully misrepresent Bush's position. Unlike the "Captain's" efforts to misrepresent Kerry's.
If there is any reference to lifting a "ban" by Kerry, it is on the development of new stem cell lines that is clearly part of Bush's policy.
Here's a link to Kerry's exact positions on the current stem cell policy, so you can see exactly what I'm talking about.
If you read this, you will see that there are a number of other important issues to consider under the current policy that have nothing to do with whether it was idealogicaly motivated or not but rather on what the impact will be on finding cures for human diseases in the future.
VT... Thanks for the link to Kerry's policies, there's useful information there. I also went and found Kerry's August 2004 radio address on the subject.
This is is the closest thing I could find as an official Bush policy document on the official campaign web site - but Captain Ed covered it quite well I think. If you want insight into the President's thought process for this decision, his August 2001 speech offers exactly that as he describes the things he heard and how he made the decision.
WRT Kerry, I think what the Captain is saying is that Kerry's characterization of current policy as a ban is untrue, because privately funded efforts have no restrictions. Captain Ed then went on to quarrel with Kerry's other term, "ideologically driven restrictions" - and as noted above, I think Kerry is entirely correct to use that language.
Whether the ideas behind the restrictions are good or bad is another debate, but the Captain laid out the Bush position fairly and so people can make up their own minds. The Kerry documents above will be helpful to that process, and hopefully the Bush links I went and found will help, too.
I'll put a pointer to all this in the main post. Again, thanks.
Here's the current administrations policy positions on stem cell research.
Of all the specific issues, probably these sentences are the one around which most of this debate will necessarily take place:
"The President is committed to pursuing stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos. "
"The principle that human embryos merit respect as a form of human life."
In particular, it seems reasonable to predict that those in a legislative position who hold a strong conservative (in the religious sense) position on these moral issues would seek to ban all sources of funding for human stem cell cloning, even private, in the future.
Wow. Surely the Apocalypse.
I loathe the Council on Bioethics with every fiber of my being. I despise politicians attempting to make political capital from limitations and bans on research. I thought both Ron Reagan Jr.'s and Dr. Frist's speeches at their respective conventions were equally blasphemous, lying abominations, with Reagan trying to imply we're months away from cloning organs from fingernail scrapings and Frist stating that the technology isn't 'robust' enough to accomplish anything even if the restrictions were lifted.
Feh. You cannot legislate science. They'll just do it in Europe and boost their GNP.
My favorite example of "state science" is the USSR support for the Lysenkian Heresy. Russian genetics hasn't recovered to this day.
What moral line is being crossed. The cells for new 'lines' are taken from aborted fetuses or IVF 'surplus' embryos that otherwise would have been destroyed.
The Bush stance on stem cell research is illogical and a big 'minus' in book.