To the Editor:

Carolyn Pippen began her opinion piece by stating that the easiest way to garner public favor these days is to “sign anything that includes the terms ‘Bush-era’ and ‘overturn.’” I necessarily disagree. If I were trying to gain public approval, I’d much prefer to deliver uplifting news pertaining to the world’s dire economic situation, specifically, our nation’s own financial troubles.

Of course, the real issue at hand is Pippen’s reticent stance on research scientists now being able to access newly acquired lines of embryonic stem cells with federal funding. She felt it was important to “completely dissect the issue before jumping to dramatic conclusions.” What dramatic conclusions is she speaking of? I certainly haven’t heard of any rash logic used by scientists upon news of the ban lifting. Dr. Susan Wente, the head of Vanderbilt’s Cell and Developmental Biology Department, was interviewed by both Channel 4 and 5 News and had nothing but promising, yet rational, statements to make about accessing embryonic stem cells for research purposes.

Pippen goes on to say that the reason why Bush initially placed the ban on further funding for embryonic stem cell lines (aside from the pre-existing 60 cell lines available) was to halt “that particular subset of research to which a large portion of our country has strong moral objections.” I wonder if perhaps Americans maintained a more thorough dialogue with the scientific community, they might not be so quick to stigmatize this very topic. I also understand that communication is a two-way street, and it’s just as much the research realm’s responsibility to relay information in such a way that “Joe Six-Pack” can comprehend (which might be slightly unrealistic).

Pippen feels that it is the obligation of the nation’s citizens “to determine right from wrong ... and that power cannot ... be invalidated.” I completely agree with her. She is wholly correct in denouncing theft and murder as immoral, and that it has been up to us as Americans to prevent these acts from transpiring. However, for her to address embryonic stem cell research as a moral dilemma and then lump it into the same category as theft and murder is sensationalism at its best and flawed logic at its worst.

She makes a valid point in stating that every individual has moral breaking points, and no two are the same. Pippen explains that this is a general cause of political disagreement, which is why she thanks “God for the two-party system in moments like this.” Harrumph, I say! When I see statements such as that, I can only imagine that Pippen is insinuating that the political right holds a higher regard for life than their liberal counterparts. It’s moments like these when I grow tired of partisan antics, including using a higher power as some sort of “holier-than-thou” trump card — an all too familiar tactic ultilized by our conservative friends.

Carolyn Pippen ends her column with this, “Was I excited when I saw Obama had finally reopened the gates to new and unprecedented medical advancements? Of course. But my excitement was cautious, and yours should be too.” Statements such as these confirm an ongoing misconception about scientific research. The public at large for some reason or another perceives the science realm as highly secretive and untrustworthy ... like you never know when they’re going to clone Hitler, create the Borg and unleash chaos upon the common man. This is simply not true. If Pippen knew anything about the realm of research, she would realize that it is conducted in a very ethical manner with transparency and accountability being paramount. You know, sort of like our new government administration. Not everyone that supports embryonic stem cell research is an idol-worshipping, blood-drinking liberal who delights in the slaughter of fetuses. Of course, we do have our moments.

Caroline Wiser

Research Assistant

Medical Center North