This is a great article. Presenting the whole story and separating the emotional fight between science
and religion gave me a better perspective. Thank you.

Norma

Murray Charters wrote:

> Embryonic stem cell debate is more than science vs. religion
> Rhetorical battle is also about politics of money
> Tom Abate Monday, May 28, 2001
>
> One of the thorniest issues in biotechnology involves research into
> the therapeutic uses of stem cells taken from human embryos.
>
> In nature, embryonic stem cells divide and multiply to form every
> nerve, muscle and organ in the body. In the laboratory, these same
> embryonic stem cells could be used to fashion spare parts to repair
> weak hearts or damaged nerves.
>
> Prominent academic scientists want the federal government to fund
> research into embryonic stem cells, provided they are obtained from
> consenting couples with embryos left over after in-vitro fertilization.
>
> Anti-abortion groups have so far successfully used Congress and
> the courts to prevent the National Institutes of Health from funding
> embryonic stem cell research.
>
> The latest turn of events came in March, when anti-abortion groups
> led by Nightlight Christian Adoptions in Fullerton (Orange County)
> filed a federal lawsuit that has had the effect of stopping NIH from
> considering grant applications to do experiments with embryonic
> stem cells.
>
> Academic scientists countersued earlier this month, seeking to force
> the Bush administration to follow through with an NIH policy
> hammered out under Clinton that would have allowed federally
> funded embryonic stem cell research to proceed. Roger Pedersen,
> a professor of reproductive sciences at the University of California
> at San Francisco, said he felt morally obliged to join the countersuit.
>
> "I understand the distinction between a very early embryo and
> a baby at birth . . . and because I see that distinction I choose to do
> research," Pedersen said. The stem cells he wishes to use would be
> derived from embryos that would literally be discarded if not used
> for research.
>
> "I find it rather immoral to deprive people -- existing people -- the
> benefits of (stem cell) knowledge by simply throwing away the
> (embryonic) material," he said.
>
> Ronald Stoddart is executive director of Nightlight Christian
> Adoptions, which, among other things, places surplus embryos
> with adoptive parents. He said he's placed eight embryos so far,
> including one baby born the morning we spoke.
>
> "I understand that there's an enormous difference between an embryo
> that's two or three cells and a baby that can cry and I can hold,"
> Stoddart said. "But we got into this because we view the embryos
> as life . . . that everything you need for a human is there and it's just
> a matter of time and growth."
>
> The stem cell controversy is generally portrayed as a stark conflict
> between anti-abortion groups who believe the embryo is every bit
> as deserving of protection from vivisection as you or me, and
> scientists who hold out the prospect of creating miraculous
> treatments if only they are allowed to use a few cells, plucked
> from embryos that would be discarded anyway.
>
> I sought out another point of view, from a scientist whose qualms
> about stem cell research arise from secular concerns.
>
> "I don't like (embryonic stem cell research) and not from any
> religious conviction," said Stuart Newman, a professor of cell
> biology at New York Medical College in Valhalla and a biotech
> critic who supports women's right to choose abortion.
>
> "It's putting a use value on a human embryo that is different
> than what it was produced for, and when you attribute a use
> value to something, it becomes a commodity," Newman said.
>
> In years of debates over stem cell research, the National Bioethics
> Advisory Commission said harvesting of stem cells from surplus
> embryos is like taking organs from consenting accident victims
> and using them for transplants. I asked Newman about this.
>
> "You don't use organs from executed people to save the lives
> of other people even if those organs are going to waste," he said.
>
> Seeking permission from the parents who produced surplus
> embryos -- as pro-stem cell scientists are doing -- doesn't satisfy
> Newman. He doesn't want an embryo, created to help a couple
> give birth, to become part of a biotech value chain. Better to throw
> it away than to create a potential market for embryonic tissue the
> way people today buy and sell female eggs.
>
> Opponents of embryonic stem cell research say there are alternatives.
> Adults also produce stem cells in the blood, brain and muscle. These
> adult stem cells are also being studied for their therapeutic potential.
>
> The great weight of scientific opinion, however, says adult stem cell
> studies are not a substitute for properly conducted research into the
> uses of embryonic tissue. Eighty Nobel laureates recently told that
> to President Bush in a letter quoted in Pedersen's countersuit:
> ". . . Impeding (embryonic) 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."
>
> It's tough to argue with 80 top scientists and even tougher to
> confront the patients who might one day benefit by research.
>
> Former actor Christopher Reeve, now paralyzed by an accident,
> has been the most visible advocate of federal funding for embryonic
> stem cell research.
>
> But these scientific and emotional appeals, though powerful,
> should inform our thinking, not substitute for it.
>
> Bear in mind this is not a debate about the legality of embryonic
> stem cell research. Such work is being carried on today, on a modest
> scale, supported by biotech firms like Geron Corp., the Menlo Park
> company that controls many patents on embryonic stem cells.
>
> What is at issue in the current lawsuit is whether NIH should use
> federal funds to accelerate this research.
>
> "We think we can control embryonic stem cells to provide
> a wide variety of tissues that could be useful for diseases," said
> UCSF's Pedersen. "The ability to achieve and deliver on that is a
> function of the number of people who put their minds to it. You
> can't expect one California biotech company to accomplish this --
> it takes the entire medical enterprise."
>
> It is this last point that makes the issue most important to me.
>
> Biotechnology is an industry whose products often depend on
> federally funded university science. This gives research debates
> political overtones. When academics look for money to bioengineer
> crops, they say they want to feed the world. When these scientists
> say they want money for embryonic stem cell research, they ask on
> behalf of the diseased.
>
> The scientists may be completely in earnest, but the research
> takes on a life of its own. Modern bioscience is geared toward
> commercialization. The last step in discovery used to be publication
> in a scientific journal. Now scientists take discoveries through
> to patents, products and profits.
>
> Andy Kimbrell, director of the International Center for Technology
> Assessment in Washington, D.C., said the financial pressures on
> science, combined with "public amnesia" about past technological
> claims, encourage hype.
>
> "Ten years ago it was gene therapy and fetal tissue research that
> were going to be silver bullets for disease," he said. "Neither of these
> have lived up to their promise. Now we're hearing the same promises
> for embryonic stem cell research."
>
> Are we moving too fast, too slow or just right on embryonic stem
> cell research?
>
> As you filter these questions through your own values, please
> don't think it's as simple as lining up behind science or religion.
>
> ©2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page D - 1
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=chronicle/archive/2001/05/28/BU21307.DTL&type=business
>
> ****************
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn