Posted on 03/30/2007 11:07:07 AM PDT by franky1
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick said Friday he will push to reverse stem cell research restrictions imposed by his predecessor, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.
The changes last August prompted complaints from researchers who said they could be prohibited from using some embryonic stem cells. They also argued the restrictions undercut a 2005 law that had been approved by the Legislature over Romney's veto.
Patrick told a meeting of the Life Sciences Council on Friday that he would ask the Public Health Council, which approved the changes, to revisit the policy. In effect, Patrick will be able to reverse the policy, since he will gain control over the panel next week amid an overhaul linked to the state's new health insurance law.
"I believe that life sciences should be guided by science, not politics," Patrick told the roundtable of biotechnology officials.
The governor said researchers should not have to compete globally "under a regulatory cloud, or to do so with one-hand tied behind their back."
He said he hoped the council would create a hospitable regulatory climate "and then get out of the way so that you can do what you were trained to do, and so that your imagination and creativity can have the full range of its potential."
Embryonic stem cells have the capacity to become any cell in the body, and scientists are eager to expand their research with them to treat a variety of diseases, from Alzheimer's to diabetes. Patrick noted that his mother-in-law suffers from both, while his late mother had lupus.
Abortion opponents complain about the destruction of embryos that occurs in harvesting the cells. Romney has been heavily courting social conservatives. Massachusetts' 2005 law banned the creation of embryos for the sole intent of donating them for research. It also clarified that district attorneys could not charge scientists for the type of research they perform. Romney's regulations, however, stated that embryos could not be created for the sole intent of using them in research.
Patrick said reversing the Romney policy would restore the intent of the Legislature.
"That political debate happened during the debate about the legislation," Patrick said in discussing stem cells. "And then there was a vote, and the governor's previous position did not prevail in that vote. And then he re-imposed it in the regulations. That's a problem." Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said Patrick and Romney are politically "very different people."
"The stem cell regulations we drafted were aimed at preventing embryo farming, the large scale cultivation of embryos for the sole purpose of research and experimentation," Fehrnstrom said.
The new governor also reversed changes Romney had made in immigration policy and some spending cuts.
As Wesley J. Smith wrote in “National Review”, “The pattern in the media reportage about stem cells is growing very wearisome. When a research advance occurs with embryonic stem cells, the media usually give the story the brass-band treatment. However, when researchers announce even greater success using adult stem cells, the media reportage is generally about as intense and excited as a stifled yawn.”
What?!!! Mitt had laws that limited research on stem cells that the libs now think they need to reverse?
Reading the anti Mitt threads you'd never hear that!
Mitt came down on the side of life and did the best he could in Liberal Marxachusetts.
Absolutely! The mitt haters best wise up before they help elect Hillary who would oppose life.
Follow the money, starting with State and then Federal taxpayer-provided funds for an industry that has no track record of success, like most liberal programs. It isn't the research into embryonic stem cells that is important here. It is who heads the agencies to distribute the money, and where it gets distributed.
The industry has been in business 15 years with no results.
Adult stem cells have over 80 active success stories.
Are you implying that Mitt made his veto based upon whom would get the funding? ... If so, I would disagree since I believe he made his veto based upon principle, the principle of opposing dehumanization of human life at earliest ages.
If Mitt is elected your statement will then be,
Mitt came down on the side of life and did the best he could in Liberal United States.
That's ridiculous.
The U.S. Congress is not 85% Democrat, like the Massachusetts legislature is.
I believe Romney's veto had the result of preventing any State-funded research program from going forward. This prevented the corruption I described. Such vetos are usually based on principle. I don't see a contradiction here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.