OPINION: Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research, and the War Against Disease
By Lawrence I. Bonchek, MD

The medical community should be profoundly disappointed, but not surprised, that
the recent cloning of a human cell for stem cell research was accomplished in South
Korea. Disappointed, because the U.S. is intentionally taking a back seat in a
therapeutically vital field of research. Not surprised, because that is the inevitable
result of the lack of federal funding for this research. Britain, China, Singapore, and
others are aggressively developing stem cell research centers, and some American
scientists have already left for foreign shores. In response, the U.S. is vigorously
advocating a U.N. resolution to impose a worldwide ban on therapeutic cloning.
U.S. Deputy Ambassador James Cunningham says the administration is not
"prepared to accept" a partial ban on reproductive cloning alone.

The basis of this policy is the President's (and the so-called Religious Right's)
conviction that human life begins at conception. (Considering that those who hold
this view generally favor capital punishment, one wag has quipped that "the
Religious Right's concern for human life begins at conception and ends at birth!") In
this view, cloned cells as well as excess frozen "pre-embryos" from fertility clinics
are considered humans, and even those that will be discarded may not be used for
life-saving research. This seems to be a consistent position, given its premise, but
in one sense, it is incompatible with the duties of the President's office.

Any President, as Commander-in-Chief, must be willing to fight wars despite
inevitable casualties, and the war in Iraq has proven this President's readiness to
do so. But military conflicts are not the only wars. As physicians, we are acutely
aware that the perpetual global war between man and disease has caused more
casualties than all of history's shooting wars combined. In New York City, more
people succumb to various illnesses in three weeks, than died on 9/11. In regard to
the potential of stem cell research, there is thus a certain irony in using the term
"pro-life" to describe a policy that would sacrifice countless people, suffering from
myriad diseases, to save fertilized eggs. Even if we regard excess "pre-embryos" as
humans, we should see them not only as what they are, doomed clumps of cells that
will never be implanted in a uterus nor develop their potential as humans, but as the
noblest they can be: foot soldiers in the global war against disease. The President's
opposition to their use in that war can therefore be viewed as incompatible with his
duties as Commander-in-Chief.

From the perspective of freedom of religion also, embryonic stem-cell research
should be supported with federal funds. In America, we recognize that religious
opinions vary. The world's great religions permit lives to be forfeited for a greater
good. Even the most peaceful religion - Buddhism, often permits it; in certain cases,
Judaism mandates it. As columnist Ellen Goodman has pointed out, "It's not a
question of whether the pre-embryo has any moral worth, but whether it has more
worth than a person." Countless Americans of every faith, including conservative
Republicans such as Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, have no religious objections to
therapeutic cloning. Rabbi Moshe Tendler, Professor of Jewish Medical Ethics at
Yeshiva University, has called it "inhumane" to abandon it. Recently, even Nancy
and Ron Reagan have forcefully advocated it. Any effort to impose one sectarian
religious view on the general population actually threatens the separation of church
and state. Those with religious objections to stem-cell research are free to refuse its
therapies, but the rest of us must be free to benefit from them.

The advance of scientific knowledge cannot be forbidden. The full potential of stem-
cell research is unknown, so it will be investigated, here or elsewhere. Despite
federal restrictions, California and New Jersey are providing public funds for this
vital research, but support from financially strapped states is necessarily limited.
Several universities are using private funds to support stem cell research centers.
The pivotal question is, without the support of the federal government, will the
United States be able to lead research in this exciting field, as it does in most other
areas of medical research, or will it cede leadership to others, who will reap the
benefits of new therapies? Of the 60 existing stem cell lines that this administration
initially claimed were fully adequate for research, at most only 10 to 15 are useable.
Worse, none can be used to develop treatments for humans, since all were
originally grown on mouse cells, and they could expose humans to an animal virus
that our immune systems could not fight. We also know that adult stem cells, though
readily available, are not as versatile as embryonic stem cells.

In April, 2002, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-Tenn.), whose opinion on
medical issues understandably carries extraordinary weight with his Senate
colleagues, announced his support for a bill introduced by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-
Kan.) that banned reproductive and therapeutic cloning. (Frist's initial
announcement on stem-cell research in July 2001 was optimistically interpreted as
representing enthusiasm for stem cell research, but it imposed so many conditions,
all predicated on his clearcut statement: "I am pro-life," that his support for the
Brownback bill should have come as no surprise. His announcement also insisted
that any funding be within a "strictly controlled framework," and "this framework
must ensure the highest level of respect for the moral significance of the human
embryo.") Moreover, the President's Council on Bioethics is chaired by Leon Kass,
M.D., who has called all forms of cloning "repugnant."

As physicians, we have not been bashful about expressing our desire for tort
reform, and perhaps because of that priority, we have not spoken out against the
federal government's science policies, even though 20 Nobel Laureates from
various scientific disciplines have signed a letter doing so. As cardiothoracic
surgeons we must always put our patients first. The limitless potential of embryonic
stem cell research (new valves, new conduits for bypass, new blood vessels, new
hearts?) obliges us to complain publicly about the lack of federal funding for this
vital research.

Lawrence I. Bonchek, M.D.
Lancaster General Heart Center
555 N. Duke St.
Lancaster,
Pennsylvania 17603
717-544-4995

http://www.ctsnet.org/doc/9510

* * *

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