President Obama Reverses George Bush's Stem Cell Research Policy

On March 9th, 2009, President Barack Obama lifted the ban on federal funding for stem cell research. A ban which the former President, George Bush had instigated through Presidential Executive order on his first ever televised addressing after his inauguration. As Obama reverses yet another policy of the Bush administration, it is absolutely perplexing to comprehend George Bush's view & decision.When George Bush assumed office, he inherited a confusion from the Clinton administration. A confusion which sprouted in 1995 when the Human Embryo Research Panel pushed the Clinton administration for federal funding of Human Embryonic Stem Cell (hESC) research. The Clinton administration rightfully declined to fund any research where Embryo cultivation was done with the sole intent being research. But funding was agreed for research making use of left-over embryos after IVF (in vitro fertility) treatments. Then, came the Dickey Amendment from the Congress which banned federal funding for any kind of hESC research. In 1999, the Clinton administration reconsidered funding of hESC research & decided to fund hESC research making use of Embryos discarded after IVF treatments only.This centre-left attitude on a confusing issue was reconsidered immediately after the conservative Republican party returned to power. So much so that, President George Bush's first televised addressing to the nation focused only on federal funding of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
George Bush & the Republican party then took a centre-right attitude by allowing research on existing human embryos but banning federal funding for research performed on embryos formed from then onwards. Bush's argument was that there were approximately 60 stem lines already existing on which extensive research could be carried out. Bush also stated that these 60 stem lines could regenerate indefinitely. This was however, strongly opposed by leading scientists indicating that there were only around 20 to 30 stem lines left that could be used for research with most of them having no regenerative capacities. Whether this was a factual error by the Bush administration was never thoroughly investigated. Justification for banning federal funding relied heavily on this fact. A criticism of hESC research was of possible formation of a cancerous tumor called Teratoma. This limitation however was never cited in Bush's speech. This was not the last time Bush dealt with the hESC controversy. While he made hESC research the subject of his first televised addressing, he went on to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, the first bill he ever vetoed. After 2001, with awareness & gradual realisation of the potential hESC research had, both houses of the Congress & the Senate passed a bill which would provide federal funding for research on discarded embryos from IVF. Unbelievably, Bush vetoed this bill. He subsequently went on to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 as well. This continued opposition from Bush is what perplexes me. Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader from 2003-2007, one of the strongest supporters of the ban which Bush brought forth in 2001, reconsidered his decision & supported the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. Though he continues to be a strong opponent of abortion & same-sex marriages, he has advocated federal funding for hESC research having realised the potential it has. What were Bush's reasons? Bush's main opposition was that it was unethical to kill an Embryo which had the capability of developing into life. Why didn't Bush realise that 400,000 frozen Embryos in US fertility clinics could be put to better use than being left to wither away? Why didn't Bush realise that after an IVF treatement, the surplus embryos can very effectively be used for hESC research? What made Bush overrule a bill accepted by the Congress & the Senate, not once but twice? What made Bush ignore an opinion that some of the most conservative Republicans had in supporting Federal funding? Was George Bush, a Methodist (Protestant) really influenced by the extreme opposition of Catholic churches on the issue? Did Bush not realise that though Adult Stem cell research showed promise, the hESC research was far more medically prospective overcoming a lot of shortcomings Adult stem cells had? Was Bush so preoccupied to fund the War on Terror that he considered funding hESC research or State Children's Health Insurance Program (which he vetoed), a waste of federal spending? None can answer these except Bush himself. While it took Obama less than 2 months to realise the potential behind hESC research while rightfully maintaining clear reservations against cultivation of hESC for research purposes only; Bush didn't realise it even after 2 terms at the helm.

Mis-adjustments of a Rapid Economy

The last decade of the Twentieth century has seen India emerge as a major player in the World economy. Transition in World perception of India, from being an under-developed to an emerging economic superpower has taken just two decades. And, in this lies India's challenge. A country which undergoes sudden economic propulsion is sometimes underprepared for the increased cultural exchange that comes with opening up to the World. Cultural acceptance is a slow & gradual process with no guaranteed total acceptance.
The recent spate of incidents in Mangalore & the aftermath are testimony to this societal confusion. I will not again elaborate on the brutality of those attacks. I am hoping however to reflect upon the inexplicable reactions it has invoked from Political parties.

With the recent history of Karnataka's fragile coalition Governments & the Lok Sabha elections being around the corner, one would have expected a scathing attack from rival parties on the State's inaction. This would have been an issue that the Opposition could have effectively capitalised on to wreck the pro-development image the ruling party has sculpted. Surprisingly, none from the State Opposition, the regional Congress nor the JD(S), have launched an all out offensive. This is a clear reflection that these political parties may not agree with the Ram Sena offensive but are confused on agreement on the now famous "Pub Culture" phrase. So what is it that is holding the Opposition back?
Political ideology is but a mere reflection of Public sentiment. In some cases this strikes a chord with the Public, in some it doesn't. So, it is imperative for a Political party forseeing a General election, not to strike a dischord when Public opinion itself is divided. So, for once probably with a pragmatic view the Political class is not entirely at fault.
This is where the complexity of the rapid Economic development & the attached Cultural exposure surfaces. Increased salaries to not just the elite but all sections of the society has been one of the success stories of India. And with this comes increased consumerism, be it branded clothing, expensive cars or a dry martini. While this is normal for the liberal, deep pocketed youth; the relatively orthodox parent will seldom understand this exposure. Though pubs have existed for a long time in cities like Bangalore, it was more or less a playground of the elite. The foray of lower sections calls for rapid Cultural adjustments starting at individual homes. Unfortunately, Cultural adjustment cannot be as rapid as Economic development.
Difference of opinion will always exist during Cultural evolution. However, it is the responsibility of the State to see to it that imposition of opinion from either side is codemned. In a democracy, one can ony educate the Public on a given issue, the decision still rests with the Public. Hooliganistic approaches, Regulatory Policies will only further widen the divide. Being an optimist, I hope this Cultural Evoulution happens albeit not at the pace at which we want it to.