 |
 |
EDITORIAL: Should Government Ease Restrictions On Stem-Cell Research? Science, religion, health care, morality. The battle has been fought on many fronts. The question: Should the federal government pay for embryonic stem-cell research? The debate stirs deep emotions. Proponents say the work offers hope to millions who suffer from diseases such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's. But critics are driven by strong views against abortion. They consider the tiny balls of cells to be the beginning of human life. Creating some unusual alliances on the way, the conflict has grabbed a good share of the spotlight in this year's race for the White House. President Bush has restricted funding for embryonic stem-cell research; the Democratic platform calls for reversing that move. What are these cells? Embryonic stem cells form shortly after conception, basically serving as the body's building blocks. Researchers believe they can isolate the stem cells and signal them to produce heart cells, brain cells and others, creating body tissues that could be used to treat not only diseases but spinal cord injuries. Here's the source of the conflict: To start a line of stem cells for research, scientists take cells from a days-old human embryo after laboratory fertilization. The embryos are destroyed in the process. Stem cells can also be taken from adults. But scientists promoting embryonic research say the adult cells are not as useful and don't hold the promise of the embryonic work at this time. At the center of the debate are fertility clinics. Labs working with couples undergoing in vitro fertilization typically create more embryos than the couples will use. Many of the extra embryos are routinely frozen and eventually discarded. Research proponents, stressing that these embryos are already destined to be destroyed, say it makes sense to first let them be used for studies that may eventually save lives. Among scientists, the fertility labs are the most widely accepted source of embryos, although some have indicated they would like to create embryos specifically for research, using donated sperm and eggs. The fertility clinic approach is often cited by proponents seeking a compromise on the issue. But research critics, many of whom hold deep beliefs that life begins at conception, have generally responded that destroying embryos for any reason is wrong. Critics say tax dollars should not be used for anything that results in the deliberate destruction of an embryo. And so the battle continues. Indeed, there's a chance the stem-cell conflict could evolve into a debate over the operation of the fertility clinics. The president steps in The stem-cell battle intensified quickly when, in 2001, Bush moved to limit funding. He declared that the federal government would not pay for studies on any new lines of embryonic stem cells -- any obtained after Aug. 9 of that year. At the time, there were believed to have been 78 available lines. But research proponents later complained that only 19 were available and that those were contaminated, making their usefulness uncertain. They say U.S. scientists need new lines. And they warn that as new lines are created in other nations, American scientists will not only fall behind in the field but will also lose out on determining what ethical standards are followed. The White House has consistently rejected suggestions that its policy is inadequate, saying the private sector can conduct embryonic research without federal dollars. And the administration has urged studies with adult stem cells to find ways to bypass the embryonic process altogether. Politics and science A few weeks ago, 58 senators -- 43 Democrats, 14 Republicans and the Senate's one independent -- sent a letter urging Bush to ease his restrictions. The Senate letter followed a similar effort in the House by 206 members, including 36 Republicans. Former first lady Nancy Reagan has joined the chorus, saying the research could lead to cures for several illnesses, including Alzheimer's disease, which afflicted the former president. (A number of scientists have cautioned that Alzheimer's may not be the best target for stem-cell studies.) President Reagan's son, Ron, spoke in support of easing restrictions at the Democratic National Convention last week. In the Senate, Republican Orin Hatch of Utah says there is strong support to ease the administration's restrictions. But senators on both sides agree there would be little chance of getting two-thirds majorities in the two houses to overturn a veto. In a sign of the issue's complexities, Hatch, a longtime abortion opponent, is a proponent of the controversial research. He has predicted that the administration and researchers will eventually reach a compromise. Meanwhile, California voters this fall may decide to bypass federal dollars. A plan for state taxpayers to provide $3 billion for the research is on the ballot. -- Steve Riesenmy SOURCE: Sarasota Herald-Tribune, FL http://tinyurl.com/5l6fp * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn