California taxpayers have been fleeced once.
Proponents want to do it again.
IBD weighs in nicely in preemptive opposition, with one shortcoming noted later (bolds are mine):
(The original $4 billion) Proposition 71 was based on two false premises. The first was that money was the problem and by restricting federal funding on embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) to existing stem-cell lines derived from previously destroyed embryos, President George W. Bush had stopped the science in its tracks.
Federal funding of stem-cell research was one of the decisions President Bush covers in his book “Decision Points.”
On Page 117, he writes: “Embryonic stem cell research seemed to offer so much hope. Yet it raised troubling moral concerns. I wondered if it was possible to find a principled policy that advanced science while respecting the dignity of life.”
And here’s a fact you never hear: Bush was the first president to fund embryonic stem-cell research at all. He decided to continue funding on existing stem-cell lines derived from already destroyed embryos, but not fund new lines created from embryos created just for that purpose. Private ESCR research was never banned.
The second false premise was that ESCR was the only promising avenue of such stem-cell research. Because embryonic stem cells could be easily coaxed into becoming any body part, the argument went, research into adult stem cells was a waste of time.
The Obama administration recently approved only the second human clinical trial using embryonic stem-cell lines.
“We’ve heard so many times that adult stem cells can’t treat diseases, or only treat a few blood diseases, and those who have pointed out the truth, that adult stem cells are already helping patients for over 70 diseases and injuries, have been scorned,” Prentice notes.
… Prop 71 was driven by ideology, not science. Were it otherwise, the money should have flowed to those pursuing, and producing, actual treatments and actual therapies for actual human beings.
It would be nice if scorn were the only thing ESCR proponents have. As is the case with the hoax known as human-caused global warming, they still have mythology and a fair amount of control over the pursestrings on their side.
As is the case with what I refer to as “globaloney,” a substantial portion of the ruling class and the media won’t let go of ESCR no matter how beneficial adult stem-cell research (ASCR) proves to be. The editorial’s only shortcoming is that it didn’t elaborate on why that’s the case.
With globaloney, we have an admission on the record from Ottmar Edenhofer, an IPCC economist, that their enterprise is all about a different kind of green, i.e., worldwide wealth redistribution and control (as translated — “But one must say clearly that we distribute by climate policy de facto the world’s wealth”).
With ESCR, we don’t have a smoking-gun admisson just yet. But in addition to the obvious monetary motivations of ESCR-involved researchers, there is an obsession on the part of some (you know who you; you just don’t have the honesty to publicly acknowledge it) to prove that you can improve the live of the already living by taking embryonic human lives.
They’re self-evidently wrong. With each passing day during the past decade, ASCR’s forward march has gradually removed their mask. For all practical purposes, we don’t even need a motivtional admission any more. As they continue to bitterly cling to their mythology in the face of overwhelming evidence, they tell us all we need to know.