 |
 |
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