Politics Over Promise

The issue of embryonic stem cell research has reemerged in the 2006 elections and it’s been interesting to see how both sides have articulated their views. Those who oppose federal funding for embryonic stem cell research have mostly tried to skirt the issue but their statements have generally boiled down to something like this: “I have consistently been a proponent of stem cell research because of the promise it brings to millions of Americans. However, I am against the federal funding of embryonic stem cells because I believe it is immoral to utilize or destroy human embryos in the name of science.”

So, let’s break down that statement into its two suppositions.

#1: “Even though I oppose embryonic stem cell research, I am a proponent of research on alternative stem cell lines that yield just as much promise.”

To claim that you fully support stem cell research because you support research on adult stem cells and cord blood is disingenuous because there is no serious opposition to those efforts. On the contrary, it would be more accurate to label them as impediments to stem cell research because nearly all experts agree that research on embryonic stem cells offers advantages that adult stem cells simply do not. That is despite the fact that adult stem cell research has a 40 year head start on embryonic stem cell research and has enjoyed a sustained funding commitment from the National Institutes of Health.

A group of 80 Nobel laureates addressed this point in a letter to President Bush on February 22, 2001:

“It is premature to conclude that adult stem cells have the same potential as embryonic stem cells -- and that potential will almost certainly vary from disease to disease. Current evidence suggests that adult stem cells have markedly restricted differentiation potential. Therefore, for disorders that prove not to be treatable with adult stem cells, impeding human pluripotent stem cell research risks unnecessary delay for millions of patients who may die or endure needless suffering while the effectiveness of adult stem cells is evaluated.”

A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences substantiates that claim:

“Adult stem cells are rare, difficult to identify and purify, and when grown in culture, are difficult to maintain in the undifferientiated state. It is because of those limitations that even stem cells from bone marrow, the type most studied, are not available in sufficient numbers to support many potential applications of regenerative medicine.”

#2: “Utilizing embryonic stem cells for research is immoral.”

The claim that utilizing embryonic stem cells for research is destroying human life is disingenuous. It’s disingenuous because the legislation that passed Congress would have allowed federal funding for this research only on stem cell lines derived under strict ethical requirements from excess in vitro fertilization embryos. Therefore, it simply would have used those excess embryos formed in fertility clinics that were slated for destruction. If you oppose the destruction of those embryos, that’s one thing. If you condone that practice while opposing embryonic stem cell research, then you’re either deeply confused or you’re shamelessly appealing to your evangelical base.

Senator Orrin Hatch, an ultra conservative and pro-lifer, is a staunch supporter of this legislation because he believes it’s possible to be both anti-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell research. “A critical part of being pro-life is to support measures that help the living. And this research enhances, not diminishes human life. If encouraged, it can improve the lives of millions of Americans and could lead to new scientific frontiers not now in sight.” He further explains;

“As part of the fertility treatment process, it is inevitable that there will be some test tube embryos that will not be needed and will never be implanted in a mother’s womb. And let me be clear here, I believe that the highest and best use of a human embryo is to be used by loving parents to add to their family. I wholeheartedly support adoption of spare embryos and would give adoption precedence over use for research. I think most would agree with me on this.

But the fact of the matter today is that there may exist at any point in time more than 400,000 such unused embryos in the United States and each year tens of thousands of such spare embryos are routinely and unceremoniously discarded and destroyed. It is from these embryos that scientists have derived stem cell lines.

A stem cell in a petri dish or frozen in a refrigerator will never, even in 100 years, become more than stem cells. They lack the breath of life. I believe that life begins in the mother’s womb, not in a scientist’s laboratory.”

In 2001, President Bush permitted federal funding for embryonic stem cell lines created prior to August 2001. For a President who sees the world in black and white, it was an interesting decision because it placed a totally arbitrary date and time on such a “moral issue.” It was moral to conduct research on stem cells created prior to that date and time, but immoral to do so on those created after that date and time. Further, recent developments have cast doubt on the usefulness of the stem cells authorized for use by the President. It makes utilization of additional lines that much more critical. Senator Tom Harkin, the champion of stem cell research in the Senate, explains:

“The Administration originally said 78 stem cell lines were eligible for federally funded research, meaning they had to be derived before the totally arbitrary date and time of August 9, 2001, at 9 p.m. Today, only 22 of those 78 lines are available for research – not nearly enough to reflect the genetic diversity that scientists need. But more importantly, a recent study showed that all 22 lines are contaminated with mouse cells, making them dangerous to use in humans.”

The legislation that passed Congress overwhelmingly and was ceremoniously vetoed by the President would have lifted the eligibility date of August 9, 2001, as long as strict ethical requirements were met.

In arguing for passage of the bill, Senator Harkin concluded, “We don’t require our astronomers to explore the heavens with 19th century telescopes, and we don’t require our geologists to study the Earth with a tape measure. If we are serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research, our biomedical researchers need access to the best stem cell lines available.”

On the day the legislation passed the Senate, Senator Hatch issued the following statement; “Today, the Senate made a commitment to the millions of patients who are waiting for cures. Together, Republicans and Democrats, we said: We hear you. We won’t stand idly by and allow Federal policy to hamstring one of the most promising fields of research.”

For the millions who are hopeful and awaiting much-needed cures, it’s truly a shame that the President feels differently.