Newspaper Article

READERS WRITE

CHARLES KELLY, DON GALLION JR., FRANK A. ANANIA, WILLIAM GISSY, BARBARA EIKE, MICHAEL W. NORWOOD, JULIE SILVERMAN

2006

Overview

The latest exercise in mental gymnastics was the board's comments on stem cell research (\"Lift lock on stem cells,\" Editorial, July 17). Aside from the backhanded slap at Catholics by using the term \"anti-abortion zealots,\" the editorial continues to mislead the public by creating the impression that only embryonic stem cells have potential for medical cures. In fact, the National Institutes of Health states that both the degree of plasticity of somatic stem cells as well as their sources in adult tissue are greater than first realized. The U.S. Senate voted to expand federally funded stem cell research (\"Stem cell bill OK sets up Bush veto,\" Page One, July 19). All Georgians should take note that Sens. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) voted against this bill, presumably because they are anti-abortion and need to pander to their conservative base. President Bush vetoed the bill, presumably for the same reasons Isakson and Chambliss voted against it. If the emotional issues of morality and cures for specific diseases were left out of this debate, what could we say about stem cell research? Theologians and philosophers can grapple with morality, and scientists should determine the most beneficial results of any research. What's left is whether the government should fund such research, whether the source be embryonic, umbilical cord or adult stem cells. I submit that there is no authorization given in the Constitution, after reading and rereading, for government to raid the public treasury to fund any scientific research.

• Publisher: Atlanta Journal Constitution, LLC