 |
 |
The Boston Globe, MA A BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL Research retarded 7/25/2003 SEVERAL YEARS from now, when with any luck the first patients with diseases like diabetes or Parkinson's will be successfully treated with therapeutic cell cloning, the political hurdles impeding this technique will seem as dated as past debates over in-vitro fertilization or recombinant DNA. But in the meantime these impediments are slowing progress, and it is to the credit of the editors of The New England Journal of Medicine that they have promised to speed advances in this area by seeking out and publishing well-done studies on embryonic stem cells. Therapeutic cloning is controversial because it involves the creation of a cloned embryo, though not for reproduction. The purpose is to produce a line of embryonic stem cells from which new, healthy tissue can develop for sufferers of several diseases. Stem cells from a patient's cloned embryo are superior to stem cells extracted from an embryo left over from another couple's fertility procedure because they are a better match, avoiding tissue rejection. Critics object to this technology because they see therapeutic cloning bringing science dangerously close to reproductive cloning. Abortion opponents equate the destruction of any embryos, cloned or not, with abortion. In 2001 President Bush tried to strike a compromise on the issue with his nationally televised decision to permit federal support only for embryonic stem cell research, using a limited number of cell lines that existed at that time. While his aides said there were dozens of such cell lines available, close inspection since has shown there are barely a dozen, far fewer than is necessary for robust research. This limit on federal research money is particularly frustrating to scientists because the technology is still at an early stage in which private companies are reluctant to invest and government money is crucial. The other cloud over therapeutic cloning is legislation passed by the House of Representatives that bans both it and reproductive cloning. So far the Senate has sensibly rejected such a bill, with many senators favoring a measure that would ban reproductive cloning but permit the therapeutic version. In this climate, it is reassuring to have an institution with the prestige of The New England Journal of Medicine take such a clear stance. ''I believe,'' wrote the editor, Dr. Jeffrey Drazen, in last week's issue, ''that such research must continue in the United States if we are to provide the best possible care for our patients.'' He expects many of the cutting-edge studies the journal publishes on stem cells will be from foreign countries where there is stronger public support for the work. Both the medical community and the public at large must be kept informed of progress being made and what the stakes are of insufficient investment in this research. This story ran on page A22 of the Boston Globe on 7/25/2003. SOURCE: The Boston Globe, MA http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/206/editorials/Research_retarded+.shtml * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn