We’re sure this wasn’t the only language added to the higher education bill by legislators. It was, however, the only language politically charged enough to delay the passage of a bill crucial to universities deciding how to balance their budgets. If, as the delay indicated, the issue was contentious enough to warrant significant discussion, it shouldn’t be tied to something as immediately important as higher education spending.

The language for the stipulation originally was introduced by state Sen. Tom George, R-Kalamazoo.
“We’re not asking them where the embryos come from, we’re just asking how many (are used),” George said. “This is really very simple, and (universities) are making quite an exaggerated debate against it.”

Perhaps the debate is exaggerated, but George offers very little in the way of reasoning. Simply wanting to know isn’t the greatest foundation for any law. We raised the issue of whether it was the right time and place for the reporting stipulations, and George’s reasoning is too weak to justify delaying a bill that has real and immediate consequences if held up for too long.

If oversight is what George wants, he need look no further than the state of Michigan’s website, which states: “Any institution or organization that conducts any research using human subjects must have an Internal Review Board, or IRB, to review, approve and monitor all research projects to ensure ethical requirements are met.”

Furthermore, those organizations also must be in compliance with the National Academies’ requirement for Embryonic Stem Cell Research Oversight, or ESCRO, committees, according to the state of Michigan’s website. It also states ESCRO committees provide oversight over all derivation and use of embryonic stem cell lines, review scientific merit of research, review compliance with regulations and maintain registries of embryonic stem cell research conducted at the institution and embryonic cell lines derived or imported.

That’s a great deal of oversight. And all handled without the use of the scarce resources at the state’s disposal. We are not for sacrificing reasonable protocols because Michigan is cash-strapped. We are against adding extraneous regulation when there is no reason to do so.

It is rarely a good idea to argue the intent of a law. Despite differing ideologies, we should assume legislators want what is best for the residents of this state. George might have good intentions. If that’s the case, he should raise them at a more appropriate time.