|
Updated: 10:52 PM Nov 18, 2009
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Will a Ban Help or Harm the University of Nebraska?
Lincoln Four members of the University of Nebraska Board of Regents have drafted a resolution that would limit embryonic stem-cell research at the university system's facilities, but is it the right direction to go in?
Posted: 10:07 PM Nov 18, 2009Reporter: Terra Hall Email Address: Terra.Hall@1011now.com |
|
16 Comments 
Jim Strand supports embryonic stem cell research because of its potential to treat debilitating diseases.
"The country was founded on the basis that we wanted a separation between church and state," said Strand. "But we have now an ideological issue along principally religious lines trying to dictate research issues and guidelines in a state university."
Strand worries the University of Nebraska regents' recent resolution that could prohibit the use of embryonic stem cell research will not only prevent those suffering from getting cures, but that it will hurt the university as well.
"If you're trying to attract top notch researchers or teachers and you have the reputation for a governing board, that has chosen along narrow ideological grounds, to ban certain endeavors - that is just not the kind of institution that many people are going to take a second look at," said Strand.
But as one of the resolution's co-authors, Regent Tim Clare does not support embryonic stem cell research.
"It's not just the four members of the Board of Regents that have pulled this from the sky," said Clare. "It's one that has been looked at and studied by lots and lots of people."
Instead he wants the university to go in a different direction.
"The mission that we want to have the Medical Center proceed is one in becoming the international leader in the adult form of stem cell research which has proven to be very successful," Clare said.
Still supporters of embryonic stem cell research say excluding it in the state could prevent scientists from finding cures to disease.
"I don't deny the regents from having their own personal points of view, but I think they need to be elected and looking broadly enough at issues to set their own personal issues aside and do what's best for the University of Nebraska," said Strand.
A 2008 Nebraska law prohibits the use of state money or facilities for creating or destroying embryos for stem-cell research using a technique commonly referred to as therapeutic cloning.
The NU Board of Regents will meet this Friday to consider the resolution that would limit the research to pre-existing lines approved under the Bush administration. The public is welcome attend and speak.
To get your voice heard, contact: Donal Burns at djburns@nebraska.edu or 402-472-0075.
Latest Comments
PAUL-So how is it we have any laws since all laws are based on someones morality,(or lack of)? As far as representatives, they are supposed to be restricted to the constituion and if they were we would not even be having this discussion. Besides if abortion is a right (which its not) and the government has to supply rights, then if I'm to poor to buy a gun the government should have to buy me one.
KELLY- I would like to point you to this article: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause It is from Cornell University. It states again what I wrote in my post on 11/25, that the law is protected from religion, just as religion is protected from law. In then end since we don't know which religions definition of rights to use, no religion can be preferred. Another problem with your statement is that the state is not interfering with your belief by having a tax. You are still free to believe as you always have. As a citizen of the state (US or NE) you have agreed to live under the rule of the law of the land, in this case a republic where representatives elected by majority vote make decisions and we live by the laws they create. You don't pay an abortion tax, or a stem cell research tax. You pay your taxes and the officials that you have elected decide how the money should be spent. To change these laws you must change the officials which you are free to do by voting.
PAUL- Impossible since our rights come from God and not from government, governments can only grant privleges. This is what the framers also believed. If what you say is true I should be able to with hold paying any tax my faith disagrees with or the state is interfering with my religion.
KELLY- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The word respect means "1)a relation or reference to a specific thing 2)an act of giving particular attention 3)high or special regard." Making no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion means: making no law with a reference to a specific religion (def. #1), Making no law giving religion particular attention (def. 2), AND making no law holding a religion in high or special regard (def. 3). The second clause of the first amendment, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." says laws cannot be passed that prohibit the practices of religion. In short; CLAUSE 1: protects the law from religious influence, CLAUSE 2: protects religion from the influence of law. All together = Separation of church and state. Religion stays out of the law and the law stays out of religion.
As a sufferer of MS, anything goes when it comes to saving lives. Look at organ transplants is that inhumane? Come on people if we can improve the quality of life---is there a wrong to that? Leaving an embryo frozen or destroy it doesn't make since. At least the embryo will be alive in another person just like organs are. Maybe we should ban organ transplants--they save lives why should we do that? If one of your childfen ended up with a debilitating disease you would be all for this.
PAUL, THE 1ST AMENDMENT SAYS CONGRESS SHALL NOT INFLUENCE RELIGION, IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT RELIGION NOT INFLUENCING GOVERNMENT (CONGRESS).
Don- The first amendment of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The very first clause of this says, in much more eloquent way, there is to be a separation of church and state. No laws shall be created based on the beliefs of a specific religion. Despite the efforts of many people, if the reason you believe something is wrong is because god won't be happy, it can't be a law. Note: This post is simply to inform everyone (specifically Don) that the separation of church and state is, in fact, in the Constitution. Whether this applies to the stem cell debate is still up for debate.
Oh please... "the end does NOT justify the means..." Then why do wars begin and continue...??? There is an end that is sought and the means of getting there are usually morally reprehensible in the very least. I'll bet you supported that too...
the end does NOT justify the means; no embryonic stem cell research
Brittany--why not put those embryos up for adoption? Also, see: www.stemcellresearchfacts.org TO SEE REAL LIFE today STORIES OF people being helped by adult stem cells. THIS is where we need to put our dollars, not pie-in-the-sky embryonic research.
Brittany - Please take care of your 7 "tiny" children the way you take care of your 3 "big" children. Please don't let people run deadly experiments on any of them.
This is not about religon, but about the dignity of human life. I see the experimentation on human embryo's in the same light as Mengele's research on Jews that were going to die anyway. if experimentation on humans, even ones that were going to die, was wrong during WWII it is just as wrong now.
As an individual who has undergone IVF, I am now the proud mother of three beautiful children. We still have seven frozen embryos which we don't intend to use for the purpose of reproduction. Is it better to leave these little souls frozen and/or thrown away or to perhaps use them in a way that might find a cure for the genetic, life shortening disease (Cystic Fibrosis) my husband has battled since birth?
I support Tim Clare-Regent with his view on the stem cell research. I am totally against the creating and destroying of embryos. Let's use the adult stem cells, at least the adults can make a choice to donate their stem cells, the innocent embryo has NO choice.
It is a fact that adult stem sells are the ones that work, not embrionic. So why all the fight, work with adult stem cells!!
| Stories with Most Comments |
| LPD Officer's Death Raises Seatbelt Concern 17 Comments |
| Coach Pelini Not Injured in Lincoln Crash 16 Comments |
| Nebraska Student Vows to Help Make Patriotism 'Cool' 15 Comments |
| LPD: Man Arrested for Killing Chihuahua 15 Comments |
| Lincoln Southeast Teacher Collapses, Passes Away 14 Comments |
| Neb. AG Planning Lawsuit Against Health Care Law 13 Comments |
