(Delivered by Senator Chris Lauzen in the Illinois State Senate on 2/23/07 in opposition to SB4)
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,
In this proposal, we will legalize spending an open-ended commitment of taxpayer funds to conduct controversial and speculative embryonic stem cell research.
The Civic Committee of Commercial Club has recently made the case that Illinois is insolvent considering only its current obligations. Now our attention and taxpayer funds are being diverted from education, property taxes, safe transportation, and reduction of pervasive corruption by seductive promises of cures for diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, and even cancer.
I support privately-funded stem cell research that does not destroy innocent human life. I am sponsoring SJR4 to that end. Obviously, we all want cures for diseases; the question is, "What are we willing to sacrifice to get them?"
A human embryo, a fertilized egg, unites the essential genetic material that defines an individual human being. In the process of embryonic stem cell research as it is currently practiced, scientists discard the original life within the fertilized egg and replace it with foreign genetic material that they prefer to grow there instead. The unique identity of an individual human being vanishes for eternity.
Naturally, we all want cures for diseases. My grandfather suffered from diabetes. My brother suffers from it now. My sister survived juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. It was tragic to watch my father slowly debilitated by a neurodegenerative disease. Every person whom we serve has a stake in the success of scientists, although eventually each of us will lose our struggle with immortality.
There are at least three major areas of reason why all conscientious legislators ought to hesitate before they leap onto the bandwagon of approving what could become $125,000,000 of taxpayer money to fund embryonic stem cell research, i.e. moral compromise, scientific productivity and non-destructive alternatives, and fiscal irresponsibility.
Ask yourself the question, "When is the cure for my disease more important than your life or your individual human identity?" Responsible human beings have recognized from the beginning of medicine that there need to be limits to what some are willing to do to others in the name of research. Hippocrates, the Greek philosopher and father of medicine, taught the first medical ethic, "First, do no harm", in his Hippocratic Oath. The unique identity of an individual human being is the first casualty to this research as it is currently done.
The destruction of an embryo is not necessary to derive the greatest portion of research benefits in two ways. First, patients with 58 different medical conditions have been helped by adult and umbilical cord stem cell research, where an embryo is not destroyed. However, no clinical cures have been produced so far as a result of human embryonic stem cell research. Secondly, researchers like Professor Kevin Eggan at the Harvard University Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology and Dr. George Daley of Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School are working on techniques like fusion regeneration and parthenogenesis which represent a third, non-destructive alternative where the embryo is not sacrificed. When they succeed, this entire divisive debate will disappear.
A truly extreme position in this controversy would be to stubbornly insist upon controversial and speculative research that requires the destruction of a human embryo.
Finally, beware of what proponents are actually promising. They speculate that spending potentially $125,000,000 of taxpayer money will produce cures. However, they know that these results are not guaranteed. Some politicians promise to balance a budget, but don't deliver. They promise to properly fund education, but don't deliver. They promise to provide utility rate relief, but don't deliver. And, they promise to pay their current Medicaid obligations to local health care providers on-time, but don't deliver. These promises are relatively straightforward and have been broken. But now, with this latest proposal, they want us to believe that our tax money will produce cures for every disease. How many times do we need to be disappointed before we discern the consistent pattern of the unreliability but constant overreach of distant government?
Most of the people I serve distinguish between good research that heals physically and spiritually, and bad research that destroys. They recognize that the most immediate therapies are from adult and umbilical cord stem cell research, and in the long-run from non-destructive embryonic stem cell research. We need to approach these decisions with humility and patient hard work. We should study and incorporate the thoughts of our best ethicists, scientists, fiscal experts, and moral leaders. Now is the time for these men and women to have their voices heard.
