 |
 |
USA Today 07/05/2001 - Updated 10:15 PM ET It isn't a sexy topic, just a matter of life and death Remember those classic cartoons in which a character like Bugs Bunny wrestles with his conscience with a good angel and a bad angel perched on either shoulder? A columnist on the cusp of a sleepy summer weekend finds himself in a similar ethical predicament. Right now, that smirking bad angel with the satanic tail is whispering: "Gary Condit. That's all people want to read about. Do today's column on his 'friendship' with missing intern Chandra Levy. Write about how the reclusive California congressman didn't even have the gumption to show up at his hometown Fourth of July parade." But the good angel, the one with the halo and the beatific smile, has a different agenda. "Stem-cell research," the angel urges. "That's the most crucial issue facing George W. Bush. How the president decides could shape the future of medical science for decades. So what if stem-cell research isn't amusing or salacious? You have a responsibility to your readers." Picture the furrowed brow of the columnist as he grapples with temptation. He mulls the story in Thursday's USA TODAY quoting a Levy relative who contends that the intern said she had an affair with Condit, despite the lawmaker's denials. Then, with a sigh, the columnist turns away from scandal and instructs his computer screen, "Let's go for worthy and try not to make it dull." Nothing better symbolizes the rapidity with which medical science confronts society with ethical dilemmas than stem-cell research. It was less than three years ago that James Thomson, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin, demonstrated that stem cells from days-old embryos could create any cell in the human body. The potential for breakthroughs in the treatment of such diseases as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's seemed vast. But this research, which harvested embryos either left over from in vitro fertilization or from abortions, carried with it a moral dilemma at the intersection of science and religion. For how does a free society make decisions that touch at the core of life itself? There is a train of thought that argues that scientists in white coats should be left alone, free from pesky governmental regulations, to decide what should be the permissible boundaries of medical research. This mindset appeals to both those who deify scientists and those who worship at the shrine of free-market economics. But does the ability to manipulate strands of DNA automatically endow scientists and doctors with an ethical sensibility beyond that of ordinary mortals? Neither the Hippocratic oath nor a Ph.D. from a major university has the power to liberate medical researchers from the base ambitions that afflict the rest of us. Sure, there are selfless scientists who are motivated only by a passion to serve humanity. But far more typical is the talented researcher whose scientific zeal is coupled with the dream of lucrative drug-company patents and a passion for the acclaim of his peers. Completely left to their own devices, there will always be scientists who press against the edges of medical ethics. Aside from a few free-market fanatics who still regard Medicare as a socialistic scheme, no one challenges the federal government's role in modern medicine. Federal funding decisions invariably influence which research avenues are deemed promising and those which are judged dangerously speculative. For all its conspicuous flaws, the American medical system is defined as a common good with an ethos of sharing its bounty with rich and poor alike. That's why we all have a stake in Bush's forthcoming decision on stem-cell research. If the president makes good on his campaign pledge to ban federal funding for research on stem cells derived from human embryos, then these potentially epoch-making experiments will be marginalized and exclusively reserved for the private sector. But if Bush reverses course and backs the medical use of stem cells created in laboratory petri dishes, he will enrage conservative supporters who regard such research as the moral equivalent of infanticide. We all approach this issue with built-in prejudices. There are those, myself included, who bring to this debate a strong bias in favor of stem-cell research, which stresses the differences between human embryos growing inside a mother and clusters of cells developed as a byproduct of in vitro fertilization. Others regard this as a facile distinction. They believe that any combination of sperm and egg should be considered sacrosanct. This is not a tax bill, which comes complete with countless avenues for possible compromise. If Bush issues regulations banning federal funding for stem-cell research, there will be strong pressure in Congress to pass legislation overturning these restrictions. Although there is a faction within the administration that believes that research could be served by limiting experimentation to stem cells donated by adults, many scientists vigorously dissent from this politically convenient viewpoint. As in any scientific controversy, ordinary citizens tend to agree with those scientists who buttress their own pre-existing conclusions. As Gary Condit reminds us of the long and tawdry history of congressional sex scandals, there will be those who will bellow that Congress is the last place on the planet to look for ethical guidance. Yet political office has never been limited to the morally pure, as even, yes, presidents have fallen from grace. These elected officials, for all their failings, remain proxies for all citizens. And in an imperfect world, we must look to the political system as the arena in which the hard decisions about the limits of medical research must be made. This doesn't free the rest of us from an obligation to try, as best as we can, to reach our own conclusions about the ethical limits of modern science. Sure, it's more fun to gossip about errant congressmen. But sometimes we have to turn to our better angels and face the intellectually demanding requirements of citizenship in the 21st century. http://www.usatoday.com/news/e98/shapiro/552.htm * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn