 |
 |
Sunday, June 24, 2001 Let scientists explore Two news stories last week illustrated America's current clashes over the boundaries of scientific research. In one story, researchers rhapsodized over a new treatment for diabetes involving the transplant of insulin-producing cells from cadavers into diabetics. Ecstatic patients were reporting cures - but considerable research still lies ahead. More sophisticated treatment of diabetes and a long list of other diseases may well depend on the availability of stem cells from human embryos. In the other story, the Bush administration announced its opposition not only to the production of cloned babies but also the creation of cloned embryos for medical research. Still to come is the President's decision on whether to ban all government-funded research using any embryonic stem cells, cloned or otherwise. So far, the administration appears sympathetic to the view of many religious leaders and other abortion opponents: Research using even the smallest human embryos is wrong because it requires the destruction of a potential human being, they say. Therein lies the clash. Is it acceptable for research to use human embryonic cells - generally fertility lab by-products that would have been discarded - for the greater good of curing disease and saving lives? Or is it simply unacceptable to treat embryonic tissue as just another bit of disposable lab material? There is actually a reasonable, and moral, middle ground - one that respects the human potential of embryos while not standing in the way of research that could benefit all. The standard for all embryonic cell research should be, as one expert has said, whether that research serves a "life-affirming purpose." President Bush, and his successors, should be guided by this principle while walking the line between respect for life and respect for the science that saves life. A federal law that would criminalize the production of cloned babies is understandable. In a world that may someday witness commercial human cloning, congressional action may at least put the brakes on reproductive cloning advances until society has a better grip on the potential consequences - bad and good. But the administration goes too far in supporting a bill from U.S. Rep. David Weldon (R., Fla.) that would outlaw not only reproductive cloning but also the creation of cloned embryos for scientific research. A wiser bill from U.S. Rep. James Greenwood (R., Pa.) deals with both issues. It would criminalize human reproductive cloning (with fines of $1 million or more) but protect scientists who would use the transfer of cells to create cloned human embryos for research, at the earliest stage of development. Scientists believe, as Mr. Greenwood does, that cloned cells hold great medical promise. Someday, embryonic stem cells may be developed, for instance, into insulin-producing cells that could be transplanted into a diabetic with less drawbacks than cells from a cadaver. But cloned cells might work even better because they would be perfectly matched to the patient. This is the theory, yet to be proved. And there is one way to guarantee that the vital questions posed by such research will never be answered, at least in the United States - and that's by banning the research or refusing to fund it. The President's decisions on embryonic cell research should not be swayed by a desire to please any constituency. It is commendable that one of Congress' strongest abortion opponents, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), supports basic embryonic cell research. Literally, human life is at stake. http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/06/24/opinion/ONESUN24.htm?template=aprint.htm * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn