That article in “Nature” we linked to yesterday, based on a questionnaire on the candidates’ views about scientific issues, also gives their positions on stem cell research. Here Obama explains why he still believes in harvesting unwanted unborn children for their stem cells even though new techniques are making it no longer necessary, something McCain recognizes:

Would you lift President Bush’s ban on federal funding for research on human embryonic stem-cell lines derived after 9 August 2001? Under what conditions do you find it acceptable to create a human embryonic stem-cell line?

Obama: Stem-cell research holds the promise of improving our lives in at least three ways — by substituting normal cells for damaged cells to treat diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, spinal-cord injury, heart failure and other disorders; by providing scientists with safe and convenient models of disease for drug development; and by helping to understand fundamental aspects of normal development and cell dysfunction.

SPL
For these reasons, I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on the funding of human embryonic stem-cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations. As president, I will lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem-cell lines created after 9 August 2001 through executive order, and I will ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight.

I recognize that some people object to government support of research that requires cells to be harvested from human embryos. However, hundreds of thousands of embryos stored in the United States in in vitro fertilization clinics will not be used for reproductive purposes, and will eventually be destroyed. I believe that it is ethical to use these extra embryos for research that could save lives when they are freely donated for that express purpose.

I am also aware that there have been suggestions that human stem cells of various types, derived from sources other than embryos, make the use of embryonic stem cells unnecessary. I don’t agree. While adult stem cells, such as those harvested from blood or bone marrow, are already used for treatment of some diseases, they do not have the versatility of embryonic stem cells and cannot replace them. Recent discoveries indicate that adult skin cells can be reprogrammed to behave like stem cells; these are exciting findings that might in the future lead to an alternate source of highly versatile stem cells. However, embryonic stem cells remain the ‘gold standard’, and studies of all types of stem cells should continue in parallel for the foreseeable future.

Rather than restrict the funding of such research, I favour responsible oversight of it, in accordance with recent reports from the National Research Council (NRC). Recommendations from the NRC reports are already being followed by institutions that conduct human embryonic stem-cell research with funds from a variety of sources. An expanded, federally supported stem-cell research programme will encourage talented US scientists to engage in this important new field, will allow more effective oversight, and will signal to other countries our commitment to compete in this exciting area of medical research.

McCain’s stance on embryonic stem-cell research has been the subject of much speculation among researchers. He has voted twice before to lift President Bush’s funding restrictions on such work, but his running mate Sarah Palin opposes the work. His public position is perhaps best summarized in his response to questionnaires from advocacy groups such as Research!America last year and ScienceDebate2008 this year: “While I support federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, I believe clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress. Moreover, I believe that recent scientific breakthroughs raise the hope that one day this debate will be rendered academic. I also support funding for other research programmes, including amniotic fluid and adult stem-cell research which hold much scientific promise and do not involve the use of embryos. I oppose the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes and I voted to ban the practice of ‘fetal farming’, making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes.”

I can’t think of any president, let alone a candidate for that office, having praise songs written about him or the equivalent of Sunday Schools gathered in his name.

HT: Nathan Martin

This week I’m going to be posting about solutions to our country’s financial meltdown that employ free market principles. (Some of them came up in your comments to previous posts, so thanks.)

Phil Kerpen has another idea for raising the $700 billion to buy up shaky mortgage assets:

A Treasury facility could be set up to operate exactly as suggested by the original Paulson plan. As such, it would buy troubled assets to provide markets liquidity and serve a price-discovery function. However, instead of funding the facility by selling Treasury bills that would impose a debt on future taxpayers, some or all of the fund could be constructed of capital that is voluntarily committed by private entities. 

And here’s the tax-cut sweetener: All funds invested in the facility for a five-year holding-period would be tax-free, exempt from the capital-gains tax, the corporate tax, the death tax, the repatriation tax, and any other tax that would otherwise apply.

Based on the number of commentators who are convinced the government will make money on this deal, the private capital would pour in. Billionaire investor Mark Cuban suggests that the new Treasury facility trade on a stock exchange as an exchange-traded fund. Cuban says that he and many others would be interested in such an investment.

The tax-exemption also would boost general investor interest by raising the after-tax rate of return of the rescue facility. With asset prices as low as they are, the Treasury facility would be a pretty good bet. This concept could even be taken a step further: Private entities could be authorized to establish in accordance with the rules for purchasing distressed assets, qualifying them for the new mega-tax exemptions and allowing them to compete with the Treasury-run rescue facility.

The SEC changed the mark to market rule, a simple revision that could do a lot to ease the credit crisis. Power Line explains:

As the economic crisis has deepened over the last several weeks, a number of knowledgeable people have told me that the simplest thing the government could do that would have a significant effect on the availability of credit is to ease the “mark to market” rule. A couple of hours ago, the SEC did just that. . . .

The mark to market accounting rule has been a significant cause of the drying up of credit. Currently, there is no market for a broad range of financial instruments that are backed by mortgage portfolios. Under the old version of the rule, banks had to value such assets at zero. That’s not right; most of them ultimately will have value. But currently, given the uncertainties surrounding the subprime market and some of the instruments themselves, no one wants to buy them.

The effect of such asset write-downs is that the amount of money the bank is allowed to lend is reduced. Thus, the SEC’s clarification to the rule should have the effect, in the immediate future, of freeing up a considerable amount of credit.