Funmurphys: the Blog

More Heat Than Light

Just before the November elections, some nice lady in California, Jill Asher, called me a crazy nut case for opposing Amendment 2 here in Missouri. Clearly Ms. Asher is passionate about the subject because her step mother has Alzheimer's which is a terrible disease. However, she isn't particularly knowledgable about the amendment, and while she linked to a pro and anti site each, she didn't both to link to the actual text of the amendment.

"So when I hear about you nut cases voting against Amendment 2, you are voting to halt research against this horrible disease that affects my family - and soon will affect YOURS in some way. I guarantee that as you age, you or one family members will be doomed with this horrific disease - or other's that can be cured with stem cell research."

First off, stem cells aren't likely to cure alzheimer's.

Secondly, there is a distinction between adult and embryonic stem cells that Ms. Asher is ignoring. I'm all in favor of studying adult stem cells. Pour the money there, please.

And finally, a vote against amendment 2 wasn't a vote to halt any research whatsoever. Amendment 2 was a preemptive change -- it ties restrictions in Missouri to Federal restrictions. Since there are no stem cell research restrictions in Missouri, no reaserch would have been halted if Amendment 2 didn't pass -- and no reaserch started because restrictions were lifted by the passage of Amendment 2. The only effect is on the ability of institutions, mainly Washington University, to attract money and researchers for embryonic stem cell research because Missouri would be no worse than any other state. Needless to say, supporters didn't mention this angle.

"Sorry if I sound bitter, but I can't imagine that so many people would actually vote against funding that will help us all in the future, and possibly find cures for so many diseases. I know I probably won't change your mind, but I hope you get a crystal clear picture of what you will be going through in the future."

Funding? What funding? Maybe you are confused because California voted on funding embryonic stem cell research, but here in Missouri there was no funding involved.

Also, next time you have a failure of imagination, maybe you should do more investigation and ask yourself "maybe I'm wrong?". It works wonders for me.

And no, you won't change my mind with a post like that. You're passion means nothing to me; your reasoning, facts, and acknowledgment of my reasoning and facts mean everything.

"Do you understand what stem cell research can do for you and your family?"

Well here's the deal. The results so far indicate that adult stem cell therapies can provide all the benefits more easily than embryonic stem cell therapies. I understand the desire of scientists to study everything, but ethical factors should and do limit research from time to time. No doubt not all that long ago vivisection would have provided a great deal of useful medical knowledge, but it was outlawed for ethical concerns. And it would be much easier to experiment on people without their knowledge, but again we limit that as well for ethical reasons. Now I understand we disagree about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, but please understand that ethical concerns are my objection to embryonic stem cell research, which means appeals to utility fall on deaf ears.

What I disliked most about the amendment was the deception involved. The amendment claimed to ban all human cloning while it specifically only banned creating a clone for reproduction and not for research. The Amendment claimed to guarantee access to stem cell cures for Missourians but there are no restrictions on the cures and there are no embryonic stem cell cures at the moment.

Ms. Asher called me a crazy nut case (yeah, that will help change my opinion) while linking my ballot measures roundup post wherein I thought I made clear the reasons I was opposed to the Amendment and summed up: "While I don't think this amendment will make much difference one way or another, I'm voting against it because (1) it is deliberately misleading, and (2) it doesn't belong in the constitution."

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see how that makes me a crazy nutcase.

Posted by Kevin Murphy at February 7, 2007 11:43 AM | Current Events