Hot Buttons: Talk show topics

SEND IN THE CLONES

Paralyzed entertainer Christopher Reeve joined senators and other activists on Capitol Hill Tuesday to rally opposition to legislation that would ban any technology for replicating human genetic material, including methods considered crucial to possible cures for paralysis and other conditions.

The group used a news conference in the Hart Senate Office Building and testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to decry the measure (S. 1899), sponsored by Sens. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Mary Landrieu, D-La.

An attempt to prevent the cloning of an entire human being, the bill would ban somatic cell nuclear transfer, a procedure where the nucleus of an ordinary cell is inserted into an emptied egg cell for any purpose related to human beings. SCNT -- often misnamed "therapeutic cloning" -- is considered vital in advancing research into embryonic human stem cells, which are capable of developing into any cell type in the body.

"I'm here today because I'm very concerned we're about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory," Reeve told the news conference. "It is amazing to me that we have to be here today, because it's so clear that embryonic stem cells ... are a miracle that could be available to us, yet there's a fear factor in this country that's really very disturbing to watch."

Movie producer Jerry Zucker, whose daughter's juvenile diabetes might one day be effectively treated with SCNT-derived therapies, told reporters the nation has a history of overcoming its fear of science to embrace technologies such as in-vitro fertilization. "If we are willing to accept the risks of nuclear power because we want to air-condition our houses, why can't we cure cancer without worrying about some worst-case scenario or the fear that some scientist down the line might create a human being?" he asked.

Landrieu, testifying before the committee, said the bill's supporters are focused on one principle -- creating human life simply for the purpose of destroying it to benefit others is unethical and should be illegal. Allowing the procedures while only banning reproductive cloning would be the equivalent of saying it's all right to make narcotics but it's illegal to use them. Several kinds of research, including replicating DNA and investigating embryonic stem cells, would be allowed under the bill, she said.

The Brownback-Landrieu bill mirrors a House measure that passed overwhelmingly last summer. The Senate faces increasing pressure, including an ad campaign from anti-abortion and religious groups, to act quickly on the measure.

Reeve, who was paralyzed from the neck down in an equestrian accident in 1995, said the campaign's talk of "embryo farms" and other threatening imagery is nonsense.

Paul Berg, a biochemistry professor and director of a genetic medicine center at Stanford University, told the committee that cloning for the purpose of creating an entire human already is rightfully shunned by the scientific community. But he said not only would the bill limit work on embryonic stem cells, it also would prevent researchers from creating disease-prone tissue to study how conditions such as cancer develop. Even more onerous, he said, is the bill's attempt to make it illegal for anyone to import SCNT-related therapies or procedures from other countries.

Should some forms of clone-related research be allowed? Why or why not?

(Thanks to Scott R. Burnell, UPI Science News)

A PENNY SAVED...

Americans are still carrying large amounts of debt but they've also increased their interest in savings and debt repayment in the wake of Sept. 11.

That's according to a joint survey released Tuesday by the Consumer Federation of America and Bank of America. The poll also found that the devastating terrorist attacks had a further sobering effect on consumers by diminishing their interest in purchasing luxury goods and lottery tickets.

"The events of Sept. 11 have caused Americans to reassess their priorities and take steps to shore up their balance sheets," said Lynn Reaser, chief economist, Bank of America Capital Management. "Individuals seem less willing to take financial risks and are adopting a more conservative approach to spending and living."

Asked about personal savings, 33 percent of the 1,000 people questioned said they were "more interested" in increasing their savings while 57 percent had the "same interest." Regarding debt repayments, 25 percent of respondents said they were "more interested" in their debt repayment levels post-9/11 while 61 percent had the same interest. On luxury purchases, 36 percent said they had "less interest" in buying high-end goods and 29 percent were less interested in lottery ticket purchases.

"Those who speculated that terrorism would encourage Americans to spend more freely and save less were clearly wrong," Stephen Brobeck, executive director of the Consumer Federation, said, "Instead, Sept. 11 and its aftermath has had a sobering effect on personal financial behavior."

However, the CFA/Bank of America poll also found that the majority of consumers are less worried about their financial status compared to a year ago. 36 percent of those surveyed reported that they were less worried about their "security of income," compared to a year ago. While 33 percent said they were less worried about their "adequacy of income" and 39 percent were less worried about their "amount of consumer debt," compared to a year ago.

Reaser said this "may well largely reflect the fact that many have decided to live their financial lives more prudently."

-- How has 9/11 affected your financial outlook?

(Thanks to UPI Deputy Business Editor T.K.Maloy)

LIVING LARGE

The obesity epidemic in America is getting worse as Americans continue to get fatter. The latest Harris Poll of 1,011 people finds that once again the biggest obstacle Americans face when managing their health is managing their weight.

More specifically, the poll found that among people over 25, 80 percent are overweight, up from 58 percent in 1983, 64 percent in 1990 and 71 percent in 1995. Fully 33 percent are now 20 percent overweight -- a reasonable measure of obesity -- compared to 15 percent in 1983, 16 percent in 1990, and 22 percent in 1995. In other words, obesity has more than doubled from less than one-sixth of the population 18 years ago to one-third today.

A majority of those questioned (60 percent) say they would like to lose weight, including 72 percent of those who are overweight (as well as some of those who are not). A similar proportion of all adults (58 percent) say they have made a serious effort to lose weight, including 65 percent of those who are overweight now (and substantial numbers who are not overweight).

More than half (57 percent) of those who say they successfully lost weight say they have managed to stay at more or less the same weight. This represents 28 percent of all adults.

Obesity is associated with an increased risk for Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, high blood cholesterol, heart disease, stroke, cancer, gallbladder diseases, asthma, osteoarthritis, depression, complications in pregnancy and sleep apnea.

-- Are you overweight? If so, are you currently dieting or planning to go on a diet? If you have lost weight, and kept it off, to what do you attribute your success?