by Chris
|
|
The multiple choice presidency. by Chris |
|
Friday August 10, 2001 3:06 am George Bush just made your future a little darker. He decided that federally funded research on stem cells would not be allowed. Instead he opted for research to take place on cell lines derived from stem cells. His alternative is problematic for two reasons. Cell lines are different than the cells from which they are spawned, and usually have to be "transformed" or immortalized in some way for them to keep dividing, similar to the way cancer cells divide without stopping. The second problem is that there are a limited number of cell lines available, and academic researchers will not have access to many of them.I was dissapointed because I usually expect a leader to show informed leadership. I expect them to have a grasp of the situation, and then add something novel to it. In this case I feel the public isn't any more informed about stem cells than they were before the debate began. In fact I believe they have been effectively misled (due to the equating of cells to cell lines). Primarily because George Bush doesn't argue. He doesn't demand anything intellectually, he doesn't try to stretch or test definitions. I feel he could have easily argued against opponents of stem cell research, and by his taking a stance, by his being a leader and showing that he's in command of the situation, that he understands it, he could add weight to his argument. Most Americans favored stem cell research (~%70). Instead, George Bush seems to treats a complex situation like a question on a multiple choice test. He thinks being a leader is picking a predefined choice, perhaps laid out to him by his advisors, and then sticking to it. In this case, as in many situations requiring informed leadership, it's really an essay question to be approached from different angles, and a synthesis to be made depending on what to include and what to emphasize. I think of his entire presidency as "the multiple choice presidency". In deciding that federal funds could not be used for studying stem cells he forbid the shedding of light into dark areas that profoundly affect our lives. How is it that removing and embryo from a freezer, allowing it to thaw and die before being discarded is any more desirable, or moral, than using the cells of that embryo for research which can benefit all of humanity? George Bush thinks the higher moral ground is to pull things out the freezer and throw them away. I fault him for not having a backbone to stand up to a difficult choice in the face of critics. He took the safest road he or his advisors could think of. The news reported that he looked to many people for advice, but he didn't seem to put any of it together into an idea of his own. He's not a debater, therefore, in my eyes, he's not a leader. I fault him for not being able to think on his own, synthesize an argument, and then stick to it. He doesn't shed light on his opponents, he simply enforces his will. I have to wonder, why is the decision to fund such a fundamentally rich area of research, placed on the shoulders of someone who is in such a poor position to make the decision? I think he doesn't really understand the nature of research. He certainly doesn't place much importance on it. Stem Cell Research - Why is it up to Bush? George Bush made a conservative and unenlightened decision on stem cell research today. He set back the pace of research. People with a vested interest in the benefits of research, like Micheal J Fox who is diagnosed with parkinsons disease, anyone with an older relative suffering from Altzheimers, lost something with Bush's decision. He restricted possibilities for all of us with his decision. |