The Washington Times
July 16, 2001
Trust the government?
Merrill Matthews Jr.

A number of prominent, pro-life conservatives, including Utah
Sen. Orrin Hatch and former Florida Sen. Connie Mack, have
recently voiced their support for federal funding of human
stem cell research.

Many scientists believe that stem cells taken from human
embryos, which are fertilized eggs only a few days old, have
tremendous potential for treating a number of medical
conditions, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and spinal
cord injuries.

Currently, there are perhaps 100,000 such embryos that have
been frozen and reside in in-vitro fertilization centers, left over
from attempts to implant fertilized eggs in women wanting
to become pregnant. These embryos are seen as a veritable
gold mine of medical research, if only the federal government
were allowed to underwrite the research.

Funding proponents make three basic arguments.

First, it is very unlikely the tiny clumps of human cells that
already exist will ever become people, so why not allow the
federal government to fund research on the cells?

Second, many people with debilitating medical conditions
would benefit from federal funding because scientists will
find cures faster than they would without federal funding.

Finally, since federal funding would bring with it federal
guidelines for research practices, we as a society can ensure
that stem cell researchers will act ethically.

Opponents of federal funding believe that the embryos are
human life and that it is wrong to experiment on or destroy
them. It is important to note that the debate isn't over whether
there will be stem cell research. Many private pharmaceutical
and biotech companies and universities are already involved
in such research.

Let me say that again, since this fact is often lost in the debate.
Many private companies and organizations already fund both
animal and human stem cell research. And the federal
government currently funds animal stem cell research.
The issue is only whether the federal government should
dedicate tax dollars toward research on human embryonic
stem cells.

Funding proponents' first argument is their strongest one.
Even if everyone agreed that using the existing embryos
were wrong, leaving them frozen in perpetuity doesn't seem
like a much better option. Ethically speaking, sometimes
our choices aren't between right and wrong, but between
wrong and less wrong.

The second argument is much more tenuous. Indeed, any
first-year philosophy student (or economics student, for
that matter) should be able to tell you that more funding
doesn't necessarily equal better research.

The fact that many conservatives have adopted this
argument is particularly odd. Would they also say, for
example, that more federal funding for public education
leads to better educated children? More simply doesn't
mean better, whether in research, education or anything
else.

That some conservatives have adopted the third
argument -- that federal funding will guarantee ethical
research -- is nothing short of bizarre.

Since when did conservatives come to the conclusion
that the federal government should serve as the Grand
Ethicist, ensuring that researchers don't do immoral
things?

Most conservatives criticize federal funding for public
education because it means bureaucrats can impose their
values on our schools and our children  values
conservatives often disagree with.

Conservatives also generally oppose strengthening
federal regulatory agencies that are constantly imposing
new rules and restrictions on employers.

And many conservatives oppose new medical privacy
regulations created during the Clinton administration out
of fear that bureaucrats will have access to and misuse
people's medical information.

So why do some conservatives now believe that government
oversight can ensure that scientists act ethically?

Maybe we all need to be reminded of the Tuskegee Syphilis
Experiment. From 1932 to 1972 scientists working for the
Public Health Service studied the long-term effect
of syphilis in 400 poor black males. The scientists could
have treated the men for the disease but didn't. They
deemed the research more important than the lives
of poor blacks.

By the time a journalist broke the story in 1972, bringing
the 40-year experiment to an end, 128 of the infected men
had died of syphilis or related medical conditions. Forty
of their wives had been infected, and several children were
born with congenital syphilis. While the federal government
eventually provided the men or their families with a cash
settlement, no one at the Public Health Service admitted
wrongdoing (though in 1997 President Clinton offered
a formal apology).

Today, Tuskegee stands as perhaps the darkest moment
in American medical research history. This atrocity led to
the formation of federally mandated Institutional Review
Boards (IRBs) that review all human and animal experimentation.
(I have served as an ethicist on a medical school's IRB for nearly
10 years.)

Would government funding of human embryonic stem cell
research be another Tuskegee Experiment in the making?
Probably not, but a government that saw no shame
in putting black Americans at risk for the advancement
of scientific knowledge should move cautiously.

Before conservatives assume that the government will guarantee
high ethical research standards, they ought to ask themselves
why they fight government intrusion in almost every other
area of life.

Merrill Matthews Jr. is a visiting scholar with the Institute for
Policy Innovation and policy director of the American
Conservative Union Foundation.

SOURCE: The Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20010716-93331540.htm

* * *

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