We haven't talked much about stem-cell policy lately, in large part because
the issue (and medical research and hopes for potential life-saving
treatments) is probably at a standstill until we get a new president in 21
months. There's bi-partisan support for lifting Bush's restrictions on
federally-funded research, but there aren't enough votes to override a veto.
This is not to say that lawmakers have forgotten about the issue. The House
has already passed (rather, re-passed) the Castle-DeGette bill that was
vetoed last year. The Senate is scheduled to consider a companion measure as
early as next week. It's likely to meet the same fate as last year's bill,
so everyone has to wait until 2009.
Well, almost everyone. Sen. Johnny Isakson, a conservative Republican from
Georgia, has been crafting new legislation on stem-cell research, which the
White House is willing to support.
Mr. Isakson's bill would allow scientists to conduct research on embryos
they determine are incapable of surviving in the womb but whose stem cells
are still viable for research. The bill would also allow funding for
research on stem cells from embryos that have died during fertility
treatments.
"This legislation threads the ethical needle," Mr. Isakson said yesterday.
"I'm very optimistic it will be looked on favorably, especially with the
White House's endorsement."
White House officials have met with Mr. Isakson to discuss his bill several
times since January.
"We are very supportive" of the legislation, said Tony Fratto, a White House
spokesman. "By intensifying support for non-destructive alternatives, we can
advance medical research in valuable ways while respecting ethical
boundaries."
Is this is a compromise measure that could lead to some progress? I'm afraid
not.

At the Huffington Post, Ralph Dittman, an expert on stem-cell policy,
described Isakson's bill as a poison-pill measure, intended to draw support
away from the bill that actually helps.
Senate Bill 30 (S. 30), introduced on March the 29th 2007, by Sen. Norm
Coleman, R-Minn. and co-sponsored by Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), is a
poison-pill bill which will kill all potential federal funding for human
embryonic stem cell research utilizing excess IVF embryos or, potentially,
derived from SCNT technology.
Ironically, the short title of this bill is the Hope Act. For the millions
of Americans suffering from potentially curable disorders resulting from
human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research, this act represents anything but
hope. This act would effectively install the prohibitions against federal
funding for hESC research found in the so-called Dickey amendment of 1995.
[.]
Passage of this bill would, in effect, negate any benefit from the passage
of Senate Bill 5 (S.5, the senate version of the Castle-DeGette House Bill
aimed at utilizing excess IVF embryos referred to as the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act). S. 30 would install into law the language and ill effects
of the Dickey amendment.
Those lawmakers who support the vision of regenerative medicine and the
potential of the power of human embryonic stem cell research should oppose
Senate Bill 30. It is a bill detrimental to the advancement of human
embryonic stem cell research and to the quest to cure human suffering and
disease. It is a poison pill not only to hESC research, but to SCNT (somatic
cell nuclear transfer). It is an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of
America by offering a viable "alternatives" bill. This alternative research
bill is being offered as part of a packaged compromise to insure the passage
of S.5. This is far from a compromise; it is total surrender to a theocratic
interpretation of science which, if endorsed, would be highly detrimental to
the nation's well being.
I'd just add that on a philosophical level, Isakson's "compromise" doesn't
hold together very well. This bill would allow research on embryos that
scientists determine are incapable of surviving in a womb. But based on the
conservative worldview, something's amiss - whether the embryos would
survive in a womb or not should be irrelevant. These embryos are, as far as
their ideology is concerned, people.
Indeed, it's odd that the White House would embrace such a policy at all,
because it runs counter to the Bush gang's philosophy. If embryos are
eligible for publicly-financed research, then embryos are eligible for
publicly-financed research - it's a short ride on a slippery slope from
"incapable of surviving in a womb" to "won't make it to a womb anyway."
IVF clinics are producing excess embryos to help families have children.
According to the White House, it's literally "murder" to conduct research on
these embryos. But now it's fine, so long as the embryos can't become
people? This is madness - the embryos discarded at IVF clinics can't become
people, either.
I'll have more on this next week as the debate gets ready to begin, but to
make a short story long, don't buy into any hype about Isakson's
"compromise." It's a bad policy based on ridiculous philosophy.

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