Expanding the Federal role in anything would at best be an ironic gesture to the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Among the many things Ronald Reagan will be remembered for was his opposition to the ever increasing role of the Federal Government. He believed in the supremacy of the private sector.

I just can't get behind cloning or research/activities directly tied to cloning... which is what Stem Cell Research is.

That's just mucking with things that we have no business mucking with.

Besides, are humans SUPPOSED to be disease/death free? I didn't think so, but to listen to people these days, you'd think so.

(Except in places like Africa... those people can die in squalor so long as our drug companies continue to get tax breaks, and so long as not one American soliders is put in harms way bring them relief....ugh)

Gary you make a good point, Reagan himself would have eschewed further federal involvement in such medical research. And as the scientists in the WaPo piece note, Alzheimer's patients are less likely to benefit from stem-cell research than those suffering from several other diseases.

How one feels about stem-cell reserach and treatments probably has a lot to do with one's stand on abortion. I'm pro-choice but still think many make the choice too quickly, and could have sidestepped that situation in the first place, not necessarily through abstinence, either.

That said, some abortions are going to occur nonetheless, hundreds of thousands per year in the U.S. So if there can be some further benefits from stem-cell research, I'm not opposed. Jake makes some good points, however. We, and Big Pharma, encourage the mistaken idea that there must be a cure for everything. And meanwhile, a third of the world, or so,lacks basic health care and sanitation.

My position on the Reagan legacy has more to do with a proposed tie to any more Federal spending or another expansion of the Federal governments role in our lives. Reagan argued for a Federal government organized along these principles for most of his adult life.

Just because the efforts are couched in compassion and caring doesn't provide sufficient rational to abandon these principles without great care and forethought.

Unless I'm mistaken the Federal rules restricting Federal funds for research on specific types of stem cells doesn't stop the private sector from using these stem cells. Just as I think it's perfectly consistent to favor abortion rights but oppose Federal government programs to pay for abortions I'm not particularly upset taxpayers will not fund some types of stem cell research. Nor do I think the failure of the Federal government to write checks will measurable impact any advances likely to occur.

I'm actually a supporter of an individuals right to an abortion and consider myself somewhat socially liberal in a lot of areas. Live your life as you choose. Just don't expect me to financially support all behaviors you embrace or provide incentives for reckless activity.

And yes, much of the third world lacks healthcare. However, the absence of these and other advances are much a reflection of the choices and the path of these "societies."

It's no mystery and examples abound of successful nations organizing themselves around individual freedom, representative government, open markets and the rule of law. Housing, healthcare, predictable food supplies and many other material benefits to their citizens abound in these societies. This doesn't require natural resources or a kind and caring State but an unfettered human mind to unlock our potential.

That is the Reagan legacy I want honored.

Being pro-life, I do oppose the use of embryonic stem cells. And here's some information I've gleaned that I rarely seen mentioned in the same article:

(1) The existing embryonic stem cell lines can't be used to treat people because they are contaminated with mouse cells that were used to help clone them. In other words, they are not and never were anywere near clinical trials. That's why the necessity of starting more lines, if they're ever going to get to that point.

(2) Fetal tissue has been used in an attempt to treat Parkinson's, with disastrous results.

(3) In the meantime, stem cells isolated from non-embryonic sources, i.e. bone marrow, umbilical cord blood and maybe fat, has already been used successfully to treat diseases like sickle cell anemia and some other stuff I can't remember. Leukemia? Maybe diabetes? Not just already showed some promise, but actually cured people. So why the necessity of using embryonic cells which, again, have come nowhere near showing any practical application? Unless it's to balance the ban on partial-birth abortion and the new law concerning the murder of pregnant women (Connor's law, IIRC) and their threat to the future of abortion rights?

From the Washington Post article:

"It [the idea of stem cells curing Alzheimer's] is a distortion that some admit is not being aggressively corrected by scientists.

"To start with, people need a fairy tale," said Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."

In other words, they have to lie to us to get what they want. Even if I were not pro-life that would make me very uneasy.

Finally, I think it was wretched of Nancy to use her husband's disease to push something that he never would have. Ronald Reagan was pro-life. Embryonic stem cell research is no fitting monument for him.

Test test test

I think a cloned human would have a soul. Identical twins are clones. My problem with cloning humans is that they haven't perfected the technique with animals yet. Most don't make it to birth, and of those that do, many have health defects. There was a cloned cow (named Millenium IIRC) in Tennessee who dropped dead in a field; she had appeared healthy but apparently had a massive bacterial infection. Why? They don't know. It's inexcusable to create humans this way when there is NO need for it. Let a few science fiction scenarios take place, in which people can't procreate the old-fashioned way and the human race is doomed, and then we'll talk.

Laura, I disagree about the twins.

Twins are not clones. Twins are produced by the splitting of an egg by nature, not reproduced from source cells by science. Discrimination of monocygotic twins (and clones) on the DNA level states that the cloned sheep (Dolly, remember her) had the exact DNA of her donor. (the cells she was created from duplicated the DNA) While twin sheep do not have the exact (duplicate) DNA. I see a difference, am I mistaken?

As for the soul? I don't know... that's why I posed the question. Where do souls come from? Is this a moral, theological, or scientific debate? Which opinion is more important, religious leaders or Nobel Prize winners? I'd love to say "This is what I think..." about this issue. I can't, the morality and presumed benefits get jumbled in my mind.

Your first post is missing one point Laura. It's not the use of the cells to cure anything that is the issue. It's the use of the cells for testing that is at the heart of it all. Korean scientist have already cloned human embryos, and immediately called for a ban on cloning for the purpose of producing babies. (they didn't use any mouse cells by the way) These embryos are being used as test "subjects," (that's the practical application) not as medicine for Parkinson's. Follow this story in world science and there are already some shockers.

Somebody said we shouldn't be mucking around with this, I got a feeling they are right. I'd like to see the research move forward for cures... but stop short of cloning a human. One of the reasons Bush is against the research is that this administration sees it as a stepping stone to cloning as viable reproduction. They could be right. The Brady Bill was a stepping stone toward the removal of all guns from private ownership.

"Give a mouse a cookie, and he's gonna want a glass of milk."

Whether identical twins are clones are not depends on the definition of "clone", I guess. Actually, identical twins do have exactly the same DNA. There are three ways in which twins can be produced, IIRC. Two ovum can be released and fertilized independently, and they become twins because they share womb environment and are born at the same time; but they are no more related than other sibs. Or an ovum can split and each half be fertilized independently; or the ovum can be fertilized and then split. In the last case, you have true identical twins whose DNA is identical in every regard. Yes, they're different from clones like Dolly. Her cells were old; they were the same age as her "mother" when the cloning took place. There's no reason to do this to people. (Or pets, in my opinion.)

As to the other issue - I'm not sure what you mean. My point is that they want to produce embryos for the purpose of killing them and extracting their stem cells. I think this is wrong, and further, unnecessary, since adult stem cells have cured people of various diseases without involving the sacrifice of another human life.

Ok Laura, researching twin humans does show identical DNA in maternal twins. Does that make them clones? I don't feel it does. Still natural twins, not man-made. Clones are made asexually (in plants I believe) or through genetic engineering. They are not part of the natural order of human beings. But that isn't the point is it? It's kind of splitting hairs and not answering my main question. Forgive the digression.

Would God impart a soul on a being that was created un-naturally?

Cloned embryos are being used as "test subjects" for medical science. That's what I was getting at with the second point. It isn't only the harvesting of stem cells that is going on. Since animals may react differently to vaccines than humans, clones would help us see the real effect of a "new" cure on a human. Is a cloned embryo a viable life? It seems to me that, since it could be implanted in a womb and mature, then it must be viable. That's where my brain runs into the moral wall and says, "Stop!" What's the difference between testing on clones and kids? You don't see scientists asking if they can round up all the orphans and use them as lab rats. Wouldn't that be the same?