On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Matthew Gaylor wrote:

[Charles Platt is senior writer for WIRED Magazine and an author and former science fiction editor when he's not enjoying his "retirement" in northern Arizona. I don't know the answer to Charles' question, but perhaps my distinguished readers will?]

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:10:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <cp@panix.com> To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> Cc: <cp@panix.com> Subject: stem cell speech

Matt, I am baffled that I have not read, anywhere, a suggestion from anyone that George Bush has no constitutional right to set science policy.

I have, for many years. Check the archives. I've also claimed that strictly speaking the Air Force, NASA, NSF, NOAA, etc. are actually unconstitutional. Why? Because the 10th requires some sort of deligate (at least a sentence fragment) in the Constitution for all laws. And there ain't one for any of these efforts. [Note: I also do not suggest they be shutdown, only that a discussion of existance and suitable amendments be created. Especially NASA, I believe strongly that a federaly mandated support level via amendment is in their best interest. At least they'd have a guaranteed minimum. ] -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:10:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <cp@panix.com> To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> Subject: stem cell speech

Matt, I am baffled that I have not read, anywhere, a suggestion from anyone that George Bush has no constitutional right to set science policy. His speech on stem cell research included a statement that he had decided to proceed cautiously. How does he have the right to make such a decision?

As Tim May pointed out, this isn't an issue of whether to ban the research, it's an issue of whether to provide Federal Funding to pay for the research. But the Feds are setting policy about privately-funded human cloning research, and probably could set policy about embryonic stem cell research if they wanted to. The commerce clause is pretty much infinitely extensible, or they could argue it's Protecting The General Welfare of US homo sapiens, though of course the real issue is "Mah constituents think it's creepy and keep rantin' at me about how Ah'd better do something, so of course Ah'll vote for your bill." The Equal Protection clause would even work, at least until somebody takes it to the Supremes and says that Roe vs. Wade bans Special Rights for Early Americans. You could even stretch the DMCA far enough to cover it - either the embryo or its parents owns copyright on the DNA, and there are technical methods used to protect copying (so the cells only turn into the kinds of body parts they're supposed to), and developing a mechanism to evade that protection is a violation of the DMCA even if the individual copyright owners participating in the research don't mind having their DNA copied. On a more serious note, I hope that any laws and policies they write banning cloning are narrowly limited. Lots of people get upset about cloning *entire* humans, creating a new human being who's a pseudo-twin of the original one, but that's much different from cloning body parts, such as creating a clone of your liver or kidneys to replace the damaged ones. A ban on the latter would be a real tragedy.