Year in, year out

zany · 发表于 2005-4-26 10:05

Year in, year out

Canadian PM Paul Martin looks like being ousted, less than 12 months after being elected, reports Anne McIlroy

Anne McIlroy
Tuesday April 19, 2005

Guardian Unlimited

Canadians are facing the prospect of another federal election less than a year after the prime minister, Paul Martin, and his Liberals won a minority government.

The opposition parties are expected to topple the Liberals soon over allegations of corruption in a programme that was intended to promote Canada in the predominately French-speaking province of Quebec.

The exact timing is still unclear. The most likely scenario would see the Conservative leader, Stephen Harper, move to defeat the Liberals in a mid-May no confidence vote, with the support of the opposition Bloc Québécois. That would mean an election at the end of June, almost exactly a year since the last vote. In that campaign, Canadians were clearly anxious for change after three Liberal majorities in a row, but were not yet comfortable with the Conservatives on issues like abortion.

Public opinion polls show that Mr Harper could win a minority or even a majority government this time and that Canadians now say integrity in public office is their number one issue. This means Mr Harper may be able to win simply by portraying himself as Mr Clean. There was a whiff of panic in the Liberal camp last week, with a number of MPs considering defecting.

The crisis for the Liberals was provoked by a public inquiry that heard vivid testimony about sleaze: how at least one advertising executive was rewarded with lucrative contracts for making large, secret donations to the Liberal party - preferably cash - in unmarked envelopes.

The irony is that it was Mr Martin who called a public inquiry into the scandal shortly after taking over from his long-time rival, former prime minister Jean Chretien. Mr Chretien always denied any wrongdoing and argued that the so-called sponsorship programme was important to build support for Canada after the separatists almost won the 1995 referendum.

Neither man has been personally implicated in the scandal.

But Mr Martin was finance minister for a decade under Mr Chretien. He is now the face of the Liberal party and he could pay the ultimate price for a programme that is thought to have gone badly wrong.

He is asking the opposition parties to hold off calling an election until after the public inquiry, headed by Mr Justice John Gomery, finishes its work and issues a report in the autumn.

"We need to hear Mr Justice Gomery's conclusions. Establishing the Gomery commission has cost me and my party political support, but it was, and it remains, the right thing to do," Mr Martin said last week.

Polls show that Canadians do not want an election right now, and would prefer the opposition parties wait until the public inquiry is over.

Mr Harper, however, will have to weigh those desires against the prospect of winning power. There is a chance that the public inquiry would exonerate Mr Martin. By going to the polls now, Mr Harper can catch Canadians at their angriest.

For Mr Martin, a spring election could be a disaster. His first year in power has been a difficult one. He has been dubbed Mr Dithers because he has trouble making decisions on everything from joining the US missile defence plan to how to combat global warming. He was a successful finance minister, but has yet to find his feet as prime minister.

If the Liberals lose, his political career will be over. He schemed for years to oust Mr Chretien as prime minister, but will have only managed to last a year in the job he coveted for so long. His legacy would be thin. Much of what he introduced, including seed money for a new national daycare programme, legislation allowing same-sex marriage and an expensive initiative on global warming would be likely to die under a Conservative government.

Public opinion polls show Canadians blame Mr Chretien for the scandal more than Mr Martin. But that might not be enough to save him in a spring election that now seems all but certain.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

zany · 发表于 2005-4-28 18:22

Scientists Call for Stem Cell Research Standards
By Jessica Berman
Washington
27 April 2005

A report issued this week by an independent group of U.S. scientists recommends the establishment of uniform standards for human embryonic stem cell research. The group is calling on institutions to follow the guidelines to make sure sensitive research is carried out in an ethical manner.  Some critics think the guidelines don't go far enough.

A patchwork of regulations now governs research on human embryos for the purpose of finding cures for diseases.  Embryos are a rich source of stem cells, which scientists believe can be manipulated to grow into healthy organs.

Though there are no limits on private research on stem cells, under the Bush administration, federal funding for stem cell research is available only to those scientists who agree to work on designated embryos and embryonic cell clusters.

Many scientists say the available cell lines are inadequate and the federal regulations too restrictive, and they have sought private funding. Researchers complain that they have had to compete for too few dollars.

Cancer researcher Richard Hynes of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) says all this has left the public confused about the status of therapeutic stem cell research.

"There's concern by some people that things that are inappropriate or unethical might be being done,” he said.  “On the other hand, there's concern by other components of the public that not enough is being done; that research is being delayed because of restrictions."

Dr. Hynes is co-chair of a series of guidelines issued by the independent Institute of Medicine.

To re-assure the public that research is being carried out in an ethical manner, the report recommends first and foremost protecting the privacy of embryo donors.

Under the guidelines, Dr. Hynes says researchers should in no way attempt to influence people to donate their eggs that have been stored at fertilization clinics.

"There should be no purchase or sale of these donated materials,” he said.  “The clinics should not be paid for them.  The donors should not be paid for them.  Nobody should be paid for them.  This should not be a commercial activity."

In addition, the authors recommend the creation of oversight committees at every institution where therapeutic stem cell research is carried out.  Under the recommended guidelines, the committees should consider and sign off on each proposal for growing and using embryos for scientific research.

Embryonic stem cells are usually harvested three to five days after an egg is fertilized, but before it is viable enough to be implanted into a human womb.  Because the embryo is destroyed when the stem cell is extracted, opponents of the research say it is a form of abortion, which is why the administration is reluctant to use public funds to support it.

David Stevens is head of the Christian Medical Association.  Dr. Stevens says the Institute of Medicine's guidelines sidestep the most important issue.

"But our great concern is you're still destroying human lives,” he said.  “Just because you put a nice packaging of ethical guidelines around an immoral practice, destroying one human life for the benefit of another, doesn't make it right."

Dr. Stevens believes more emphasis should be placed on research involving adult stem cells from bone marrow.

But many observers believe human embryonic stem cells are more versatile and hold more immediate promise.

Marcia Imbrescia is a breast cancer survivor who helped draft the Institute of Medicine guidelines.  Ms. Imbrescia's teenage daughter suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, a lifelong autoimmune disease.

"Patients with diseases and with serious injury learn that fairly quickly that research is fairly complicated, that it take time, that it takes money,” she said.  “I feel confident that these guidelines will help ensure that embryonic stem cell research will be done ethically and responsibly and will be worth the investment."

The Institute of Medicine report was funded by the National Academies of Sciences and the Elison Medical Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation, both non-profit organizations.

sindowa · 发表于 2005-4-29 00:44

账号		自动登录	找回密码
密码			注册

Year in, year out

有华文的吗？