 |
 |
The National Review Send in the Ban “What type of society do we want to be, and how do we view humanity?” By Kathryn Jean Lopez, NR associate editor June 8, 2001 10:15 a.m. Rep. Chris Smith (R., N.J.) will soon introduce the Responsible Stem Cell Research Act of 2001. NRO's Kathryn Lopez discussed the bill with David Prentice, a professor of life sciences at Indiana State University and an adjunct professor of medical & molecular genetics at the Indiana University School of Medicine. Dr. Prentice also serves as an ad hoc science adviser to Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback. For an earlier conversation on the stem-cell debate, see "The Truth About Stem Cells." http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory022601a.shtml Kathryn Jean Lopez: What is the Responsible Stem Cell Research Act of 2001? David Prentice: The bill authorizes $30 million specifically targeted at supporting adult stem-cell research, which has already shown itself to be extremely promising for treating numerous degenerative diseases such as heart disease, stroke, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. Adult stem cells have been shown in animal models to repair heart damage, provide therapeutic benefit for stroke, and reverse diabetes. And adult stem cells have already been used successfully in human patients to relieve lupus, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis, to name a few. We simply need more money for research into this ethical and promising avenue. The bill also sets up a stem-cell bank for collection of umbilical cord blood and placenta, two very rich sources of adult stem cells. Lopez: Is the NIH equipped to run a stem-cell bank? We have seen how they have bungled other things. Prentice: There have been questions in the past about NIH's ability to provide effective oversight of contentious research. But this is not a contentious area, and they surely have the physical facilities and personnel capable of handling this project. Lopez: The proposed NIH bank would collect umbilical-cord blood and placenta blood. Are we confident that stem cells from these sources are the most efficient? Prentice: We know both sources are rich in stem cells, and there is evidence these cells have the ability to transform into many other tissue types. These are two sources that, if not banked by the family or [made available] for general use, will be lost, sort of like a non-renewable resource. Other equally promising sources such as bone marrow can be drawn at any time from a patient or donor, so there's not the urgency for banking these cells. Lopez: Do you have any feel for how much support the bill will get? Prentice: I haven't heard of any counts on who supports it at this early stage, but this should be a bill that everyone can support! The research is not ethically contentious, it harms no human beings, it shows wonderful promise for treatment of serious diseases that affect millions of Americans, and cord-blood stem cells have already been used successfully in clinical trials. The bill is solidly for patients and for medical research for disease treatments. It puts desperately needed money toward a successful line of research. I can't think of a sensible reason not to support it. Lopez: There is so much emotion and misinformation framing the debate over stem-cell research, and such things as cloning. Is it possible, on a national or even international level, have rational, accurate conversations about facts and limits? Can Congress? Can Tommy Thompson do so with the White House? Prentice: It should be possible, though I know it's hard to put aside the emotion on both sides of the debate. The perception seems to be that the reward goes to those who make the most noise or the grandest claims. But we need to pause, put aside emotion and promises, and take a hard look at the facts. Science is not the final arbiter; science can only inform our choices regarding policy and ethics. In the end, the question we must ask is: What type of society do we want to be, and how do we view humanity? Lopez: Does the press mislead the public on these issues (for example, by not reporting successes with adult stem cells and failures with fetal and embryonic cells)? Prentice: The general perception has been that the "hype" goes to embryonic stem-cell research, even though there's precious little substance to go along with the promises being made. And [there's the impression] that adult stem-cell successes get much less coverage, and the negatives of embryonic little or no coverage. Interestingly, beyond impression, there was a study done recently by the Statistical Assessment Service on how balanced the reporting was regarding embryonic vs. adult stem cells. The study found that the impressions of the unequal coverage were well founded. There is obviously still a need to dispel the misleading statements and restore balance and truth to the reporting. Lopez: Last month, Christopher Reeve and seven scientists sued the Bush administration for doing "irreparable harm" for halting federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research for the time being, a policy that is currently under review. They accuse the administration of "preventing or delaying the advent of a cure for paralysis, Parkinson's disease, diabetes and other debilitating conditions." Is that true? Or is there stem-cell research still going on in the U.S.? Prentice: Delaying the funding of two or three projects (the number submitted) will not make or break any cure, especially in such an "embryonic" area of research, one which is frankly much farther away from such cures than adult stem-cell research. And embryonic stem-cell research will continue as it has been using private funds, likely by those same investigators, and likely with more funding than adult stem-cell research. Lopez: Does this all belong in the private sector, with some important legal limits? Prentice: Ideally we wouldn't need embryonic stem-cell research in any sector. It certainly doesn't need the sanction nor the dollars of the federal government. In light of the continuing successes with adult stem cells, even some scientists who are not opposed to human embryonic stem-cell research have made comments that adult stem cells can function as well or better than embryonic stem cells, and that it makes it hard to argue that we should use embryonic cells. Further advances in adult stem-cell research could make the whole question of embryonic stem cells moot. Lopez: Do you believe that it is possible, politically, to set reasonable limits on embryonic stem-cell research in the U.S.? And, down the road, even, on cloning? Prentice: Realistically, no, not in terms of drawing some arbitrary half- way line and saying "you can only go this far but no farther." Martin Teitel, president of the ["pro-choice"] Council for Responsible Genetics, notes "No bright line exists in ethics for deciding what is helping a person and what is turning a human being into an experiment, or a product." I note that the Council for Responsible Genetics has just issued a call for a ban on embryo manipulation, rejecting genetic manipulation, research on embryos, cloning, and embryos as items of commerce. This last point is key — their Genetic Bill of Rights notes that the "... commercialization of life is veiled behind promises to cure disease...". Sound familiar? Put another way, how do you tell the difference between a human embryo produced by in vitro fertilization or a cloned embryo? Or between an embryo intended for implantation and a live birth and an embryo intended for research and destruction? You can't. An embryo is an embryo, and we can't see (or regulate) intent. Erwin Chargaff, the renowned biochemist whose landmark discoveries about DNA laid the foundation for Watson, Crick, and many others, expresses it this way: "Research always runs the risk of getting out of control." He notes that, "There are some things you just don't do," and calls the current climate toward making human life (such as human embryos) a commodity "a kind of capitalist cannibalism." A total ban, such as the Brownback-Weldon Human- Cloning Prohibition Act, seems to be the only answer. http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory060801.shtml ********* Note: David Prentice is a professor of life sciences at Indiana State University and an adjunct professor of medical & molecular genetics at the Indiana University School of Medicine. Dr. Prentice also services as an ad hoc science adviser to Kansas Republican Senator Sam Brownback. *********** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn