colleges expressing their views on the student population

i hope this doesn't get moved to the political section, as that is not the reason i started this thread.

today, in my campus e-mail box, I received a letter from a campus official, (a non-student) about missouri's upcoming election, in which we have an ammendment on whether or not to allow stem cell research. In this e-mail from this official, it states ONLY reasons to VOTE DOWN stem cell research. no if's and's or but's about it, basically stating I'm right, your wrong.
This is where the political part ends.
I sent an e-mail back stating that it is wrong for the college to force their views onto it's students. College is a place to learn, form your own ideas, and go from there. I STRONGLY feel that sending out an e-mail, a campus wide e-mail at that, is truly wrong and sets up no room for strong debate. When I get done posting this thread, I will post both the e-mail I received and the letter I sent back, let me know what you guys think!

 

this is the campus wide e-mail i received

Dear Friends,
This is a letter that I find difficult to write because I am not a political
person, and I don't believe in imposing my views on others. But I am deeply
troubled by the inaccuracies that are being used to shape public opinion in
favor of the Missouri stem cell amendment on the November ballot and I
feel a responsibility to speak out since I understand the scientific and
medical issues.

If you read nothing else, please read this: Amendment 2 is a deceptive
piece of legislation that may mislead Missourians into approving a
Constitutional Right to human cloning, something over 80 percent oppose.

It would create a uniquely privileged status for biotech special interests
to do human cloning experiments with taxpayer money.

If the industrial revolution were just now starting and we had the choice of
developing a society dependent on solar energy rather than oil, is there any
doubt that we would choose solar energy? I think that we face a similar
choice today regarding embryonic stem cells versus adult stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells may seem to the lay person to offer greater promise for
cures, but even if this were true (which it is not), embryonic stem cell
therapies will create an insatiable and unceasing demand for more and more
women's eggs. And once a huge biotech industrial complex is established
that is dependent on women's eggs to generate more and more cloned stem
cells, it will be impossible for us to get rid of it.



In contrast, investing our resources in adult stem cells will ultimately result in
similar, probably greater cures than embryonic stem cells, without creating a
biotech industrial complex that pursues women's eggs the like ants after sugar.



The basic arguments for the stem cell amendment are essentially that (1)
embryonic stem cell research has tremendous potential for curing a wide
variety of diseases, and (2) any concerns that this research will be abused
are unfounded because we can trust the medical and scientific community to
regulate itself.

Being knowledgeable of stem cell biology and related medical research, I am
deeply skeptical that either of these arguments is true.

As many of you know, I am a physician-scientist at Washington University
School of Medicine and have received millions of dollars in research
funding, part of which has been for stem cell research related to cancer.

I approached this amendment without preconceived opinions and have read the
amendment carefully. I have listened to the arguments on both sides.

After sifting through the rhetoric, I have concluded that there is nothing
about embryonic stem cells that would indicate that they are better than
adult stem cells for curing human disease. In fact, there are many problems
with embryonic stem cells, such as rejection and a tendency to cause cancer

formation.

Further, adult stem cell research and therapies do not endanger women who
must donate eggs for embryonic stem cells.

These deceptive tactics by the amendment proponents say to me that "you (public)

are not intelligent enough to understand the issues so I will intentionally
deceive you for your own (as we see it) good."

As a medical professional, I believe that my responsibility is to make sure
the public understands the issues so that they can make up their own mind.

Thus, my goal in this letter is not to convince you of my personal opinions,
but to make sure you have the facts from a doctor and scientist who
understands the issues and does not have political or monetary motives.

Some of the most common arguments in favor of the amendment are as follows:

Argument # 1: Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), which is the type of
process for creating stem cells that is at stake in this amendment, is not
human cloning.

MY RESPONSE: When scientists talk about cloning, SCNT is exactly what they
are talking about. SCNT is the 'Medical Dictionary' definition of cloning!
The amendment proponents claim that SCNT is not cloning unless the cell is
placed into a woman's womb. That has never been the medical definition
of cloning. That is like saying that a nuclear bomb is not a weapon unless
it is dropped on people. The potential for harm and abuse is great, even if
one does not intend to act on this potential! Isn't there a road somewhere

paved with good intentions?

The fact is that this amendment not only allows human cloning, it creates a
uniquely protected constitutional RIGHT to perform human cloning!

Once created, how many government programs have you ever seen wither

and die? The funding gets bigger every year, and trying to get taxpayer

dollars away from these cash sponges becomes impossible.

Argument #2: Embryonic stem cell research has the potential for curing many
more diseases than adult stem cells.

MY RESPONSE: There is no scientific evidence for this claim. Many people
have been led to believe that we have not yet seen the incredible curative
potential of embryonic stem cells because this research is banned. The
truth is that embryonic stem cell research is not banned and never has been.

Amendment 2, if passed, simply constitutionally protects this as a RIGHT

and of course opens the treasury to pay all the costs.

Embryonic stem cells have been researched for many years and have been
reported in the medical literature as early as 1963! And yet, there is still no
evidence that embryonic stem cells have cured any disease, even in animals.

But what is really frustrating for someone like me who is involved in stem
cell research is that the success of adult stem cells is being ignored by
the amendment proponents. Advantages of adult stem cells over embryonic
stem cells: (1) they are the only stem cells that have been shown to cure
disease in animals, (2) they do not require egg extraction and the
associated risks to women, (3) they have amazing plasticity (the ability to
change into many different cell types) that far exceeds anyone's
expectations. For example, stem cells from bone marrow can be turned into
brain cells.

If adult stem cells are likely to be just as good, if not better, than
embryonic stem cells, why expose women to risky egg extraction and create a
huge demand for eggs that will surely end up in the exploitation of poor,
disadvantaged women and young, college-aged women with limited financial
resources? Especially when, after decades of study and research there is still

no evidence that this research will lead anywhere worth going!

Argument #3: SCNT will not endanger women.

RESPONSE: To be honest, this is my greatest concern. Despite loud cries to
the contrary, the widespread use of SCNT for medical research and treatment
will unquestionably jeopardize the health of women, particularly poor
disadvantaged women and young, college-age women with limited financial
resources who will be tempted to allow themselves to be given synthetic
hormones and undergo surgical procedures to extract eggs in exchange for
monetary awards. We are not talking about a few hundred cloned embryos, but
rather, millions and millions will be needed for this research!. And the
need for more eggs will never end once it starts. Even if laws are passed to regulate this process, profiteers will undoubtedly go to third world countries to find
willing subjects for this new Constitutionally granted RIGHT.

Argument #4. How could this amendment be a bad idea when leading scientists
and physicians support it?

RESPONSE: Many scientists and physicians, including myself, support adult
stem cell research, but are deeply concerned about embryonic stem cell
research and human cloning. The reason that you do not hear more experts
speak out against this amendment is that their voices have been muted. The

media seems to mingle the Adult and Embryonic research into one entity,

thereby making it appear that the issue is "stem cell research, yes or no".

It would be so refreshing to just get the facts, all the facts, from the media

and make our own decisions, rather than this selective reporting and individual

opinions being called "news"

The amendment proponents have identified one wealthy couple in Kansas City
who donated virtually all of the $16 million that is being used to saturate
the media with pro-amendment information. Meanwhile, those who are
concerned about this amendment have been denied the opportunity for public
debate and discourse by our medical schools and universities.

Suffice to say, the chilling and unreported freedom of speech violations at ostensibly

"liberal" universities to suppress voices against this amendment are breathtaking!

Everyone it seems has a voice, as long as that voice agrees with the well funded

and vocal Pro Embryonic side of this!

Final Thoughts

If for no other reason, I am deeply disturbed by this amendment because of
the deception being used to promote it. For example, Cynthia Kramer, who is
running for state office in our district, has used this issue to promote her
campaign by implying that her life-threatening disease could have been
treated more effectively with embryonic stem cells. After questioning her
campaign office and reading the text of many of her interviews and web site
statements, I can find no evidence for this claim. In reality, she
received adult stem cells in the form of a bone marrow transplant, and the
fact that she is still alive is evidence that this adult stem cell
transplant was successful! When she went to Israel seeking a "cure" for her
disease, they told her to go back to Missouri where she could get the best
care available anywhere!

I personally know of many other examples of deliberate deceptions,
intentional misinformation, and freedom of speech violations.

My practice focuses on patients with cancer, and I am profoundly wounded
when one of them dies of their disease. I am in the trenches every day, and
I understand what is at stake. But I am convinced that this amendment is
not the right direction for our state. There are much more effective ways
we can spend our money and time, without endangering women.

We all have to make our own decisions, and democracy only works well if we
make those decisions based on facts. Whatever opinion you develop on this
issue, I hope that it is based on facts.

Please feel free to email me if you have more specific questions or if you would like to talk.

Thanks for your attention.

 

Before I start this letter, I wish to inform you that the reason I am sending you this e-mail goes beyond party lines. For this matter, I am not going to disclose what parties I affiliate myself with within this letter. This is a College, and though it is open to everyone's oppinions, I feel as though sending out an e-mail that shows only one side to not only this ammendment, but any political issue where it is important for everyone to form their own thoughts and ideas, is just flat out wrong. I am personally offended that you would forward this letter to the entire campus, due to the fact that the college should in no way shape or form allow its own personal views onto students. Go to any political science teacher and ask them, if there is a student in their class that disagrees on an issue, that is room for debate, not simply saying I'm right and you're wrong. I am not even going to go into the reasons why I will vote yes on ammendment two, as that will just relent everything I have put into this e-mail. However, I strongly feel that everyone has their own personal right to form their own opinions, and to express them. However, I do not believe that this is the proper form to display one's thoughts, given that there is no true room for debate.

Sincerely,
Scott Heyman

p.s., please do not forward this letter

 

private, however that still warrants no right, imo, to basically tell their students to vote a certain way, idk, maybe i'm going a little overboard with this, but it definitely rubbed me the wrong way

 

well, i received this e-mail this morning from the campus computer guru, perhaps my e-mail may have struck a nerve:

Everyone,



Over the past few days, email messages of a personal and political nature have made their way into all of our inboxes. Information Technology staff, as well as many others on campus, have heard complaints from many of you regarding the content of these messages. Please rest assured that, as these incidents take place, appropriate steps are taken to remind senders of the College’s policy regarding the use of distribution lists. College policy is actually very simple: Do not send messages to distribution lists that are of a personal or political nature. The people that are on the various distribution groups are there involuntarily and may be offended by what you have to say; since they are a “captive audience,” we all have to be careful with our message. Distribution groups are intended to provide an efficient means of information dissemination for College or activity related business.



This does not mean that your group can’t use the lists to announce an upcoming political event. However, when announcing the event, you should refrain from injecting political editorial into the message. This policy pertains only to messages sent to distribution groups. If you enjoy having lively email debate about the latest hot button issues with people that have chosen to participate, please feel free to continue. Just keep it off the primary distribution lists.



Everyone’s inbox thanks you for your attention to and understanding of the College’s policy regarding email to distribution groups. Should you have further questions about College email, please let me know.