4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, May 31, 2005 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 STEPHANIE WRIGHT tothedaily@michigandaily.com Editor in Chief 4 DONN M. FRESARD Editorial Page Editor ~ ~ ~ tEDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorals reflect the opinion of UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other pieces do not SINCE 1890 necessarily refect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. hile U.S. politicians argue about the morality of stem-cell research, other nations like South Korea are making significant progress in one of the fast- est growing areas of biotechnology. But just as a loss of U.S. dominance in the field could result in the forfeiture of top researchers to other countries, the possibility of a regional brain drain arises within U.S. borders. Count- ing itself as one of the five most restrictive states with respect to stem-cell laws, Michigan runs the risk of missing out on the opportu- nity to participate in this revolutionary area of life science. Because the state does not permit research that would harm human embryos, researchers in Michigan - including those at the University - can only use stem-cell lines acquired from adults, from the few fed- erally approved lines or from other states. Furthermore, those who undergo in-vitro fer- tilization, while allowed to order the destruc- tion of leftover embryos, are not allowed to donate them for research. The University is the state's largest stem-cell research center, Free the stemcells Michigan must retax stem-cell restrictions but its work is constantly hampered by leg- islative restrictions and financial constraints. Without a change in state policy, the Uni- versity will fall behind in stem-cell research, further diminishing any hope of a statewide economic recovery. California voters have already approved a $3-billion bond for stem-cell research, and Stanford University has wasted no time in recruiting Dr. Michael Clarke, one of the Uni- versity's leading cell biologists. This pattern will only continue without a change in pol- icy. The University will find it hard enough to retain its own researchers, much less to work toward attracting additional scientists, if Michigan does not take immediate action. Current projects at the University have made significant progress toward under- standing and curing breast cancer and sickle cell anemia. But the measly $2.2-million grant funding its work is hardly sufficient to take advantage of the full potential of stem- cell research. With high-quality faculty and researchers, the University is only waiting on a loosening of federal and state laws in order to establish its position as a leader in stem-cell research. But so long as congres- sional debate impedes action, the risk of los- ing top researchers to other states will only grow; unless state laws change soon, the University will soon fall behind, and, in a field as fast-paced as this one, it will have a hard time recovering. Many researchers and the dean of the medical school have rightly taken firm stances in support of loosening the state laws. University President Mary Sue Cole- man must do the same and use the influ- ence of her office to garner public support for reforming the state laws. Gov. Jennifer Granholm has taken a pecu- liar stance on the issue, repeatedly emphasiz- ing the importance of developing Michigan's life sciences sector over the past few months but then backing off from the more heated issue of stem-cell research. Her current reluc- tance to promote a change in the state laws threatens not only the University but the entire state as well. If she is serious about reinventing Michigan as a center of life-sci- ence industry, Granholm must show strong leadership in order to effectively educate law- makers and the public about the promise of stem-cell research. Millions of lives could be saved by the medical advances that stem cells may one day bring, and with stakes as high as these, Michigan cannot afford to let its restrictive laws remain as they are. 4 Another blow Funding plan errs in cutting Wayne State A raw deal Democrats lose in filibuster compromise The Workforce Investment Needs pro- posal, recently unveiled by Republicans in the state House, seeks to change the way funds are distributed to the state's 15 pub- lic universities. Last week, this page criticized the unfinished plan for using funding formulas to prod university administrators into making decisionsthatmaybe counterproductivetoaca- demic excellence, and further details released since then have revealed that both Wayne State University and Northern Michigan University would suffer 5-percent cuts under the propos- al. Gov. Jennifer Granholm's office recently expressed concern over this aspect of the plan, noting that universities in conservative districts fare better under the Republican plan than those in liberal districts like Detroit. Whether or not Republicans are playing politics with university dollars, it would be a mistake to reduce funding to Wayne State. Such a move would damage one of Detroit's few bright spots; the Legislature should recognize and take into consideration Wayne State's impor- tant and badly needed role in the city before making such a decision. While Detroit continues to falter under the leadership of Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Wayne State is one of the few institutions that economically, intellectually and socially invigorates the city. As the only university in Detroit, Wayne State provides many ser- vices that otherwise would not be available. The university's psychiatric centers, located throughout Detroit, provide psychiatric ser- vices to all patients, regardless of insurance coverage. The Detroit Medical Center, affili- ated directly with the university, runs several health clinics and camps at various times of the year that provide crucial health services free of charge. Additionally, the law school provides free legal representation to the poor. These services are vital given Detroit's high poverty rates, but they may be threatened if Wayne State's funding is reduced. The resources Wayne State brings to Detroit are too many to list. The Wayne State School of Medicine is the fourth-larg- est medical school in the country and brings in many talented students from top under- graduate institutions. Put to use in the DMC, its research benefits patients while furthering the state's efforts to become a leader in life sciences. Wayne State's College of Urban, Labor and Metropolitan Affairs was estab- lished in 1985 as part of an effort to carry out the university's urban mission, to fulfill what the university calls "a special commitment to address the social, economic and political issues facing urban areas generally - and Detroit particularly." It is already in danger of being dismantled due to funding constraints, and further cuts will likely seal its fate. By drawing young, college-educated peo- ple to Detroit, Wayne State has the potential to initiate population and economic growth in the city. In recent years, the university has focused on building its on-campus commu- nity, and the effort has enabled its students to see Detroit as a livable city and brought new vitality to the area around its campus. These students bring business to Detroit's stores and traffic to its empty sidewalks; their presence plays an important role in rebuilding a sense of community within the city. Wayne State's very direct benefit to Detroit must be taken into account when determin- ing state funding. The university's reach extends beyond the city limits as well; with 90 percent of the university's alumni liv- ing and working in Michigan, Wayne State can help the state build a more highly edu- cated workforce. Recent years have already brought significant budget reductions to the university, and it would be unwise to dispro- portionately reduce its funding even more. Slashing funds to Wayne State, as Republi- cans propose, would harm not only Detroit but the entire state. In order to rebound economically, Michigan must not overlook Detroit, and reducing its investment in one of Detroit's most important institutions would be an unfortunate step backward. last-minute agreement was final- ly reached in the Senate this past week that ended, or at least post- poned, the conflict over judicial filibus- ters. While the agreement, negotiated by a bipartisan group of 14 moderates, does sidestep the so-called "nuclear option," it is a far cry from a true compromise. The Republicans agreed not to elimi- nate the judicial filibuster, provided the Democrats consented to only filibuster judicial nominees in "extraordinary cir- cumstances" and specifically allowed three ultra-conservative nominees to be subjected to an up-or-down vote. Demo- crats have sacrificed too much in what has been touted as a balanced compro- mise - in exchange for Republicans leaving the filibuster intact, Democrats agreed to virtually never use it. And, more worryingly, by consenting to three of the current nominees Demo- crats set a frightening standard for the level of extremism it would take for them to filibuster a nominee. Senate Democrats have opposed less than 5 percent of Bush's nominees, sin- gling out only those who have repeatedly proven themselves unlikely to separate their ultra-conservative personal beliefs from their rulings. One judicial nomi- nee, Texas Supreme Court justice Pris- cilla Owen, has a reputation of favoring corporations over consumers and indi- vidual workers, attempting to rewrite the law to reflect her own beliefs and taking strong stances against gay rights. In the aftermath of the agreement, the Senate confirmed her last Thursday. William Pryor, another highly contro- versial nominee, has coupled his extreme conservative ideology with his federal- ist beliefs - he has strongly opposed measures to protect battered women and supported those who would criminalize homosexual behavior. The infiltration of these extremists into the federal judicial system could be devastating to the judi- cial check on the legislative and execu- tive branches of government. The vague wording that characterizes the agreement is the most concerning aspect of the deal; the negotiating sena- tors offered no interpretation of what constitutes the "extraordinary circum- stances" necessary to permit a filibus- ter. The nominees in question are so extreme that it is difficult to imagine any future candidates who could be any more "extraordinary." Those involved in the negotiations could not promise that the nuclear option would be perma- nently set aside; what Republicans view to be an inappropriate interpretation of the highly subjective agreement could trigger a renege on the compromise. The right to filibuster judicial nominees is crucial to ensuring that judicial candi- dates are not merely puppets of party politics. The terms of the agreement will do little to ensure any sort of bipartisan collaboration, and the stakes will only rise should a Supreme Court vacancy open in the coming months. The supposed unity promised by the agreement has already proved to be short-lived; the delay of John Bolton's confirmation vote for U.N. ambassador by wary Democrats is just the first of many disputes which are quickly unrav- eling any truce established through the filibuster compromise. The end of the judicial filibuster would have chipped away at the Senate's ability to act as a moderating body, but the agreement, heavily favoring Republicans, is only slightly better. Democrats have severe- ly erred in letting what is in essence a cloaked version of the "nuclear option," disguised in vague wording and the appearance of equal compromise, slip under the radar.