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