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? Will there be an executive order? This in turn raises the question of how Congress has any right to tell parents what they may or may not do with their zygotes. Control of federal funding is one thing; but I sense a desire to go beyond that, and pass legislation similar to the anti-cloning act which seems destined to become law. Where's the constitutional excuse for this? In the tired old Interstate Commerce Clause? I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, so I may have missed something here. But what troubles me the most is that I have seen no commentators or op/ed writers raising the basic issue of control. Maybe I just don't read the right news sources--or maybe everyone has become so accustomed to centralized authority, extending all the way down to our own genes, the spectacle of a president determining science policy rouses no surprise. ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************