 |
 |
Awaiting Bush's Stem Cell Choice By Kristen Philipkoski 2:00 a.m. July 7, 2001 PDT President Bush has indicated he may make compromises to allow embryonic stem cell research. A spokesman for Bush said last week the president has not yet made up his mind, but that he believes "life should not be destroyed to save or make another life." The comment leaves open the question as to when exactly the president believes life begins. Stem cells are the basis for every type of cell in the body, and many scientists say their powers of renewal are the only hope for people with certain debilitating diseases and injuries, such as diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's and spinal cord injury. Stem cells are taken from embryos, which are destroyed in the process. Those who believe an embryo is a human being believe stem cell research is unethical and immoral. Plus, they cite advances in stem cell research using cells derived from mature cells -- taken from bone marrow or the brains of cadavers -- as better alternatives. The use of federal funds for stem cell research was banned in the United States for four years until early last year when the Clinton administration drafted new guidelines. But Bush has expressed reservations regarding the guidelines, which state that research on embryonic stem cells obtained from private research firms can be funded federally, so long as no embryos are destroyed using government money. This month, Bush is scheduled to announce a decision on whether these guidelines will hold, but has not yet given a date. Several Republican senators, including Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), have recently spoken out in support of embryonic stem cell research, surprising and confusing anti-stem cell groups that had hoped the Republican administration would support them. "It's such a clear crime against persons to kill an embryo that I don't understand why people can't see that," said Judy Brown, president of the American Life League (ALL). She says she has lost all faith that the Bush administration will uphold ALL's beliefs. "I think there was an under-the-table, behind-closed-doors agreement made between the President and these senators, including Hatch and Lott, orchestrated to give the President an excuse to do what he is going to do," Brown said. "I hope I'm wrong." Brown's sentiments are based on his performance so far in office. While former President Clinton reversed several congressional actions against abortion within 72 hours of taking office in 1993, Bush has not made any moves in the opposite direction in six months in office. "I have no reason to be hopeful about this man," Brown said. She expects nothing but compromises. And, in fact, the administration has come up with some possibilities: to attempt to control the number of stem cells in use by putting the National Institutes of Health in charge of licensing stem cell lines that would qualify for research funds; and to tighten consent requirements and protections for parents who created the surplus embryos during fertility treatments. "Our organization would oppose those," said Gene Tarne, the communications director of Do No Harm, a group that calls itself "the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics." "You would still be providing federal funding for research that requires the destruction of an embryo." "You can require any number of consent forms for parents. You're still funding research which we (believe) is unethical, illegal and unnecessary," he added. Groups that support the research include the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, the Parkinson's Disease Foundation and the American Diabetes Association. Several of these groups have enlisted celebrity spokespersons to testify to Congress, including Mary Tyler Moore for the diabetes group. Geron (GERN) in Menlo Park, California, helped fund the University of Wisconsin research that isolated the first embryonic stem cells. Geron holds patents on stem cell and cloning technologies, so the company's livelihood at least in part depends on Bush's decision. Alta Charo, a law and medical ethics professor at the University of Wisconsin and member of the National Bioethics Advisory Committee that oversees federal stem cell research, believes that any decision to fund embryonic stem cell research should be applauded. Charo is against any potential limitations placed on the numbers of cells available. Stem cells in use now can be replicated, but further research may require some additional stem cells to be derived, she said. "In light of the extraordinary medical research potential ... no avenue of research should be discouraged by lack of funding," Charo said. The stem cell debate is not strictly researchers against anti-abortion and religious groups. Stuart Newman, professor of cell biology and anatomy at the New York Medical College in Valhalla, New York, has been outspoken against the research. He believes that, although approving the research could seem like a benign step, using human embryos for research has the potential to get people used to the idea of producing human embryos for utilitarian purposes. Two applications for funding from the National Institutes of Health remain on hold until Bush makes his decision. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,45006,00.html * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn