Editor's Note (11/17/09)

Story by Carson Vaughan 

| Published Nov 17, 2009

Dear Readers,

Picture Love Library, filled with the musk of ancient dissertations and leather-bound copies of “The Grapes of Wrath.” Picture the never-ending stacks of alphabetized historical documents, the microfilm, the online journals, the years of intellectual progression preserved and available in one academic setting.

Now picture Love Library devoid of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species,” Twain’s “Huck Finn,” Salinger’s “Catcher in the Rye.” Picture it bereft of every controversial piece of literature currently sitting on the shelves—the Phillip Roth’s, the George Orwell’s, the Huxley’s, the Vonnegut’s, the Bradbury’s. Picture self-induced censorship, regression, academic oppression.

Last Thursday, Nov. 12, four University of Nebraska regents co-authored a resolution to limit stem cell research at the NU medical center to only those stem cell lines originally approved by the Bush administration. Such a restriction would ignore the guidelines approved last July by the National Institutes of Health and enact a University policy more austere than both state and federal law.

In other words, this resolution would effectively ban embryonic stem cell research at the University of Nebraska, according to Wise Young, a researcher studying spinal cord injuries at Rutgers University.

“If this condition were imposed, no serious stem cell scientist would want to join the University of Nebraska,” Young told the Omaha World-Herald. “Such a decision would make the University of Nebraska a laughingstock among scientists, something that would make recruitment of the best faculty and top students extremely difficult.”

Picture the University of Nebraska sheepishly waving goodbye as every other public university and major research institution progresses beyond our means. Picture a chapter of scientific discovery missing from the annals of Nebraska history. Picture every Neanderthal Nebraska stereotype perpetuating for decades to come.

The stem cell debate at the University of Nebraska is being waged on several fronts, but it seems few recognize the social significance of such a restrictive resolution. It’s not just a question of scientific and medical advancement; it’s a question of image. Just last fall, the state of Nebraska voted to end affirmative action in a frenzy of imprudent decision-making. Is this our next move? Should we take another step back as the rest of the country moves forward?

“I believe the university faces both challenges, and more importantly, a set of unlimited opportunities,” stated Chancellor Harvey Perlman in his 2008 “State of the University Address.” “To make further progress we must firmly point our faces and our vision toward the future. This is no time to squint, no time to look back, no time to be content with the nostalgia of what we had or to be paralyzed by the fear of what we might become.”

Yet here we are, just two years later, half our NU Board of Regents squinting and looking back, content with what the Bush White House gave us, ready to place incredible restrictions on a major part of what makes this university a leader on an international level.

Dear regents, please wake up. Today’s Salinger is tomorrow’s classic.

Respectfully-er,

Carson Vaughan

Editor-In-Chief

DailyER Nebraskan