Candidate's positions on stem cell research: Christopher Reeve

[wyldwolf]

The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR) asked the major 2004 Presidential candidates to explain their positions on stem cell research and somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technology to those Americans interested in ensuring that this research move forward. Letters were sent to: (in alphabetical order) President George W. Bush, General Wesley Clark, Governor Howard Dean, Senator John Edwards, Representative Richard Gephardt, Senator John Kerry, Representative Dennis Kucinich, Lyndon LaRouche, Senator Joe Lieberman, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, and Al Sharpton.

Not all have responded yet.

Here are the positions of those who have.

http://www.camradvocacy.org/fastaction/candpositions.asp

[Alex146]

1. Edwards has to 'reflect' on this issue?

[Clark Edwards]

11. Please note the word is "had", not "has"

I saw him speaking with a woman about how important he realizes stem cell research to be!

[newyawker99]

20. Hi Clark Edwards!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[AP]

18. God forbid someone thinks first, then acts.

Who wants that from a president?

[wyldwolf]

2. Sorry, not to bash, but I have issues with a few of Dean's points...

"Remove any political litmus tests affecting appointments at federal scientific institutes, agencies, and advisory commissions throughout the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

and...

"Appoint a Presidential Bioethics Commission that is truly bipartisan and independent with a qualified professional staff and strong patient representation that will advise me on a wide range of bioethical issues, including stem cells


When it comes to scientific endeavors, I would rather keep the rightwing out of the decision making process.

[Alex146]

3. When did shuting out repubs become good for democracy?

[wyldwolf]

6. It's good for democracy and scientific development...

The Bush administration has repeatedly mischaracterized scientific facts to bolster its political agenda in areas ranging from abstinence education and condom use to missile defense.

A 40-page document, "Politics and Science in the Bush Administration," was compiled by the minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee's special investigations division. It marks the launch of a new effort by Waxman and others in Congress to highlight simmering anger among scientists and others who believe that President Bush -- much more than his predecessors -- has been spiking science with politics to justify conservative policies in areas such as reproductive rights, embryo research, energy policy and environmental health.

Among the purported abuses documented in the report:

• "Performance measures" used to determine the effectiveness of federally funded "abstinence only" sex education programs were altered by the administration in ways that made it easier to say the programs were effective. And information about how to use a condom -- along with scientific data showing that sex education does not lead to earlier or increased sexual activity in young people -- was removed from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site.

• In testimony before Congress, Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton omitted -- and in at least one case misstated -- federal scientists' findings that Arctic oil drilling could harm wildlife.

• The administration altered a National Cancer Institute Web site in a way that wrongly implied there was good evidence linking abortions to breast cancer.

• The Education Department circulated a memo instructing employees to remove materials from the department's Web site not "consistent with the Administration's philosophy," prompting complaints about censorship from national educational organizations.

• Bush has appointed to key scientific advisory committees numerous people with political, rather than scientific, credentials. For example, his appointee to a presidential AIDS advisory committee, marketing consultant Jerry Thacker, has described homosexuality as a "deathstyle" and referred to AIDS as the "gay plague."


http://truthout.org/docs_03/080903D.shtml

[Alex146]

8. I understand your point...

I just don't think we should be complaning that Republicans shut Dems out, then do the same to them.

[wyldwolf]

9. OK, I'll quit complaining so when we get our chance to shut them out...

..I won't look too hypocritical when I call for the dems to do it.

[TexasSissy]

16. Excellent and informative post. Thanks.

This is beginning to sound like another country, with the misinformation and censorship going on.

[ibegurpard]

5. When will Clark be submitting his replies?

n/t

[wyldwolf]

7. Hopefully soon... as well as Sharpton, Braun, Kucinich...

And I'll keep you updated! Thanks for the interest in the General!

[moz4prez]

12. CLark's actually shown much enthusiasm

abotu the potential of stem cell research in some townhall meeting

[HFishbine]

15. Another view

I don't know what your beef is with the first point you quote -- seems quite reasonable to de-politisize those institutions.

And the second is an example of how Dean will win the general election -- by exhibiting a willingness to take advice from a variety of opinions.

[revcarol]

4. Kucinich's position has been out there in writing FOREVER...

as you might guess, from his endorsement by feminists, his positions are very liberal and well thought out. Believes government must do more to foster stem cell research.Funding, support,sharing research...

[killbotfactory]

13. Say WHAT?

Kucinich co-sponsored an "anti-cloning" bill which banned stem cell research, and voted against this issue in february of this year. Did he change his position between february and now?

[frustrated_lefty]

10. What's good for democracy is to have scientists have a voice

In this administration, they don't have a voice.

[mikehiggins]

14. What has this to do with Chris Reeve?

I don't see his name mentioned anywhere in the post.

[Myra]

17. Thanks for this info!

I like Dean's stance on this.
It's one of those (many) times when his medical knowledge
gives him extra credibility.

I'd like to see the other candidates respond.

Of course we already know that Bush would rather let
all fetuses grow up to be soldiers to send to likely
death in a PNAC country.

[hilzoy]

19. Actually,

Dean's statement is mostly not about stem cell research at all, but about health research policy more generally. He glosses over two of the more controversial points, namely (a) whether to overturn the existing ban on deriving stem cells with federal funding (as opposed to working on stem cell lines derived w/o federally funding), and (b) whether research involving somatic cell nuclear transfer would be federally funded. Neither can be federally funded now, and rescinding the Bush policy he talks about wouldn't make it eligible; that would require in addition rescinding the current ban (imposed by Congress) on embryo research. Deriving stem cell lines is controversial because it involves destroying embryos. SCNT research is controversial because it involves creating embryos in order to harvest their stem cells, which destroys them; not just harvesting stem cells from excess IVF embryos, which would be discarded anyways.