Deroy Murdock thinks so:
the question again should hound every Republican congressman who believes in limited government and private enterprise: “Why should taxpayers finance this activity?”
Fiscal restraint would be argument enough if stem-cell research were merely novel and not the ethical equivalent of a meadow full of land mines. While embryonic-stem-cell research eventually may yield cures for cancer, Parkinson’s Disease, or quadriplegia, the fact is that each embryo drafted into that effort is either human (if one believes life begins at conception) or at least potentially human (if one believes life begins at birth).
The so-called “harvesting” of stem cells euphemizes the fact that removing these cells leaves the rest of the embryo precisely dead. Such stem-cell-deprived embryos miss the chance eventually to become social workers, union organizers, women’s-studies professors, newspaper editors, or even medical researchers who, someday, could develop an AIDS vaccine.
These embryos are created for in vitro fertilization, often in quantities far beyond the numbers of children their parents wish to deliver. These excess embryos remain frozen in fertility labs across America. If they had to be discarded, one could argue that chopping them up for research might make the best out of a bad situation. But this is not so.
This is hackish in a lot of ways. How about the claim that the development of an AIDS vaccine is threatened by harvesting embryonic stem cells? Or the fact that "This is not so" links to a column where Murdock advocates pushing adoption for the excess frozen embryos? (After all, it's not like there are animate children who need to be adopted!)
It would be perfectly coherent (if highly contentious) to say that embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human life and should therefore be illegal. But that's not what they're saying. The Murdock-Bush position seems to be: "We don't want to fund stem cell research because it involves the destruction of human life in the form of embryos. But if y'all want to destroy human life on your own, go right ahead."
It seems to me this is nuts. Further, unless Murdock and the Republicans are arguing for the abolition of NIH (those were heady days when we could do stuff like that!), by my lights the government ought damn well to be pursuing the most effective research strategies possible. Now, I'm sure the Right can pull some doctor out of Pennsyltucky somewhere who'll tell you that embryonic stem cell research holds no medical promise over umbilical stem cells, or some other, non-embryonic form of research, but the medical consensus seems to be roundly against this. As the Director of NIH, Elias Zerhouni, noted in April:
''From a scientific standpoint, there is no doubt that many scientists will tell you that there are questions they would like to be able to address, that more lines, such as the lines, for example, that harbor specific genetic defects, would be helpful to them. There are areas of research that you could pursue.''
In addition, Murdock seems to think that $40 million is going to get you somewhere in terms of funding. From doctors with whom I've spoken, this is a fantasy. It takes big, big cash for a sustained period of time to develop and experiment with new stem cell lines. Without NIH funding, the doctors with whom I've spoken are very pessimistic. With NIH funding, one doctor friend told me, "my whole outlook would change."
Then there's the irony of these same people who oppose the destruction of innocent human life in order to make others' lives better screaming for preventive war. I wonder if Murdock opposes using innocent Iraqis' stem cells.
Ah, neolibertarians...
Update: Yglesias has a whole column on the question up here.
