"Though the American Heart Association flinched,
others will take greater heart."
FROM:
The New York Times
July 5, 2001, Thursday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A; Page 17; Column 1; Editorial Desk
HEADLINE: Essay;
Stem Cell Hard Sell
BYLINE: By WILLIAM SAFIRE
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
In the unfamiliar company of bioethicists, George W. Bush is wrestling
with a
decision about stem cell research that could define his presidency.
The most exciting scientific news in recent years is that the human
body may
have the capacity to regenerate itself. Biologists were stunned:
degeneration is
not inexorable. The earliest building blocks of the body -- cells not yet
destined to become a nerve, muscle or any of over 200 varieties of cell
-- may
soon be directed to repair organs that are diseased and to rejuvenate
those that
are wearing out.
This would mean longer lives with much less suffering. Then why
doesn't the
government plunge ahead? Delay means debilitation and death to millions
of
victims of Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes and scores of other diseases
and
untellable hardship to their families.
There's this hitch: The most flexible and versatile stem cells appear
to be
those taken from excess blastocysts (groupings of under 30 cells just
becoming
embryos) created in the laboratory for infertile couples, frozen and
scheduled
to be discarded.
What's wrong with that? Only this: The doomed blastocysts, which have
never
been inside a person, are potential people, however remote that
potential. Many
whose consciences forbid abortion believe that government should give no
moral
or financial backing to anything that impedes the development of new life
-- no
matter that its purpose is the saving of other human life.
That minority's views -- consistent with its belief that life begins
at
conception -- cannot be airily dismissed. It argues that scientists may
find, in
time, that stem cells can be developed from adult cells rather than
blastocysts.
With populist resistance growing to genetic manipulation, opponents of
embryonic
stem cell research are not alone in being troubled by the related
chimeras of
cloning.
However, that bloc is split. Some of the most ardent opponents of
abortion
see life-saving stem cell research as eminently "pro-life." That's why
most
Catholics are reported to favor financing this research.
The great majority of scientists are less conflicted. They reject a
compromise proposal that would give a single private company, which has
patents
on a few stem cell lines, a kind of monopoly. Scientists like Irving
Weissman of
Stanford were outspoken at a recent meeting at the National Academy of
Science
in describing the adult-cell alternative as a delaying tactic when the
need is
urgent. Many hope President Bush will give a hearing to Leroy Walters of
Georgetown's Kennedy Ethics Institute, who made a thoughtful
presentation.
(Disclosure: When not vituperating for a living, I head a foundation
that
supports research in brain science, neuro-immunology and immuno-imaging.
We're
exploring studies in neuro-ethics, surely a growing field.)
The decision facing Bush is ethical, political and practical. If
ethical
philosophy predominates, "the greatest good for the greatest number"
would push
him in the direction of encouraging stem cell research. Politically,
public
support for it will grow as advocates for the most directly affected
diseases
press up from the grass roots. Though the American Heart Association
flinched,
others will take greater heart.
The practical argument has the immediate puissance. This research will
go
forward with or without Washington's blessing. If we drag a foot,
Britain,
France, Sweden and Canada will take the lead. Private resources will flow
to
potential profit centers without public participation in ethical
decisions.
Bush's way on domestic affairs is usually to seek a common ground, and
the
betting is on some fuzzy compromise: medium support once removed to duck
controversy, and a fervent hope for luck with adult cells. But it would
be
better to be bold.
In a prime-time speech, he should announce his support of embryonic
stem cell
research and the careful oversight called for by scientists and doctors
who are
disinclined to play God. At the same time, he should convene a White
House
conference on bioethics; that would focus world attention on both the
opportunities in genetic exploration and America's awareness of the real
dangers
of the slippery slope to Frankenscience.
Think anew and act anew. This is a big one.
http://www.nytimes.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
