Today Phil Plait, the founder of the Discover Magazine blog “Bad Astronomy” writes that Senator Obama’s stance on embryonic stem cell research is “awesome,” and that the ball to support federal stem cell research funding is now in Senator McCain’s court. The underlying presumption that support for stem cell research automatically translates into government funding is inherently flawed.  Ultimately, the best thing for stem cell research would be for both federal and state governments to put the funding debate to rest by refusing to fund any and all stem cell research.

When Senator Obama says “I strongly support expanding research on stem cells,” and “I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations,” he has both fallen victim to a common misunderstanding and contradicted himself. The United States is not only competitive in stem cell research, but according to a study published in the Journal Cell Stem Cell this June, the Unites States produces more embryonic stem cell research than any other nation in the world and almost all of this research is privately funded. Furthermore, politicizing stem cell research funding may produce the opposite effect of what stem cell research advocates intend, namely less not more funding and more rather than fewer restriction on the research itself.

While scientists at many renowned institutions, such as Harvard University and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, began the 21st Century quietly making remarkable advances in stem cell research, other scientists decided to spend time lobbing Congress and later their states for funding.  Consequently, President Bush placed a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on all but a few established stem cell lines, and over half the states have placed some form or restriction or ban on embryonic stem cell research. Missouri represents one example of where politicalization has clearly hindered stem cell research. In Missouri, philanthropists Jim and Virginia Sowers cancelled a planned $300 million expansion of their Kansas City-based Stowers Institute for Medical Research because the “persistent negative political climate” made proceeding in Missouri an unwise investment.

Let taxpayers who find the promises of stem cell research attractive contribute on their own without forcing others who disagree with the ethics or economic wisdom of such research to contribute. Both stem cell research and the political climate at the ballot box will be the better for it.

For more on this topic see a newly published study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute “Public Stem Cell Research Funding: Boon or Boondoggle?” by Sigrid Fry-Revere and Molly Elgin .

This entry was posted on Monday, September 8th, 2008 at 4:04 pm and is filed under Uncategorized .