Is stem-cell research a sleeper issue in this campaign?
Kari Chisholm
In the race between Republican Rep. Scott Bruun and Democratic challenger Michele Eberle, it looks like stem-cell research has become an issue. They're running in HD 37, including West Linn and Tualatin.
Here's Michele's latest ad:
In 2006, stem-cell research made an appearance in a number of races around the country - most famously, in the election of Senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri (and her ad starring Michael J. Fox.) In 2004, California voters approved a three-billion-dollar bond to fund stem-cell research. This year, Michigan voters will decide whether to legalize stem-cell research in their state.
I'm impressed that Michele Eberle has made this part of her campaign. It's a great issue that ties together health care, the right-to-choose, and economic development. And it's an important issue that doesn't get nearly enough attention.
What do you think?
Learn more about Michele Eberle and make a donation.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Oct 20, '08
This issue is just one more reason that Eberle will defeat Scott Bruun this year, confounding the political pundits.
9:01 a.m.
Oct 20, '08
I'll let others contemplate the immediate political ramifications, but I can tell you that had Michele Eberle been in the Oregon House in 2007, we could have passed HB 2801 - a bill that would have set-up a research grant fund to support stem cell research in Oregon.
With scientists at OHSU already on the cutting-edge of stem cell research, we have the possibility of creating a real niche in Bioscience that may not only help improve the lives of millions, but help Oregon establish itself as a leader in this promising area of cell therapy.
I would urge those interested in learning more about Oregon's successful research and applications in stem cell therapy to investigate some of the great work that has already been done at OHSU.
Keep in mind though, that public support is critical for several reasons - one being that money follows money. If the state were to make an investment, it would increase the chances that we'd attract private support, procure grants from foundations, nonprofits, and other sources of funding, as well as codify in law what 75% of Oregonians support.
Oregon is poised to benefit from an investment in stem cell research. I sincerely hope that the 2009 Legislative Session is the one where we make an investment in this exciting area of scientific research.
Let's be a state that places its faith in the scientific method.
Oct 20, '08
Alright, she's in favor of stem cell research. That's a good thing in and of itself. But I have some questions.
Specifically what type of stem cell research is she going to support? Adult, embryonic, etc. and if she's supporting embryonic stem cell research, is she satisfied to stick with the stem cell lines that are already in existence, does she support the creation of new lines and if so how does she propose those new lines be created? Through, in vitro fertilization, theraputic cloning techniques, etc?
Is she more in favor of adult stem cell research which has the potential to result in stem cell therapies that don't require drug therapies that supress the patient's immune system to protect them from tissue rejection, or is she leaning more toward embrionic stem cell research which may require the recipient to be on anti rejection drugs?
Where has she been getting her information from? Lay people and doctors? The big drug companies that are doing a lot of the research? The medical universities that have been doing a lot of research? Or is she self educated on this subject, and if she is, which is entirely possible, then my hat's off to her.
If she is going to support stem cell research in Oregon, how does she propose to fund it?
While a 30 second commercial on this subject can give people a warm and fuzzy feeling about a candidate, it wouldn't convince me to vote either for or against her. I don't see anything about stem cell research on her website either, although I did see some other positions/ideas that looked good as far as medical insurance, and access to health care.
Oct 20, '08
Yes, these "I support stem-cell research" statements can be misleading. I interpret them to mean embryonic stem cell research, not restricted to the few lines already being used.
In my opinion, such research should be defined by medical ethicists, not right-wing orthodoxy.
Oct 20, '08
Annoy the West Linn Tidings. Support Eberle
Oct 20, '08
Isn't the conservative oppostion aimed at "embryonic" stem cell research and there is little or no visible oppostion to adult stem cell research?
Oct 20, '08
"Isn't the conservative oppostion aimed at "embryonic" stem cell research and there is little or no visible oppostion to adult stem cell research?"
Hal, That's my understanding. At least I haven't heard a notable republican come out against adult stem cell research, only embryonic. And the whole classification of this as embryonic is a misnomer as I don't think that technically, embyos are actually used. The last I read was that stem cells could be harvested from a cell mass as small as 10 cells. That ain't no embryo, not in the technical sense, I think it's actually a blastocyst....
In saying that she's in favor of 'stem cell research' I'm assuming that she means embryonic stem cell research and perhaps is leary of saying those particular words. I know I would be, it's the surest way to get you branded as some kind of monster by your republican/conservative opponent.
I think it's a shame that people on all sides of the political spectrum can't bring themselves to speak sanely and logically about this issue.
Some on the conservative side say that everything can be accomplished with adult stem cell therapy, some on the liberal side say that everything can be accomplished with embryonic stem cell therapy.
Unfortunately, I think that, this being biology, neither side is right. Some conditions will bennefit from embryionic stem cell therapy others will bennefit more from adult stem cell therapy. So both approaches need to be investigated and research needs to be continued.
In all things biological, the one time you're most assured of being wrong, is the time you most think you're right when applying a simplified static approach to a most complicated and dynamic biological world.
I see this approach being applied to international trade and foreign animal disease control/containment and it scares the piss out of me.