Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2007
Why Science Can't Save the GOP
By Michael Kinsley
No one is happier than I am about the latest development in stem-cell
research. Scientists in Japan and Wisconsin have independently figured out
how to turn ordinary human skin cells into something like pluripotent stem
cells. These are the cells that have caused so much excitement in recent
years because they are like a biological gift certificate that can be turned
into other kinds of cells as needed. These cells have also produced much
controversy because they are derived from human embryos. I have the
disease - Parkinson's - for which stem cells hold the most immediate
promise. The hope is that they can be turned into the type of brain cells
that produce dopamine, the missing ingredient in Parkinson's patients.
The stem-cell announcement also brought happiness to many politicians,
especially Republicans. It filled them with the hope that the whole messy
issue could go away. If stem cells, or something like them, can be obtained
without the use of embryos, that eliminates the supposed ethical problem
that led President George W. Bush to ban almost all federal financing of
embryonic-stem-cell research in 2001. The result has been a severe reduction
in embryonic-stem-cell research. The issue has been agony for many
Republicans, torn between the majority of voters, eager for the benefits of
this scientific advance, and the small but intense minority who believe that
a clump of a few dozen cells floating in a petri dish has the same human
rights as you or I.
But any Republicans who think the stem-cell breakthrough gets them off the
hook are going to end up very unhappy. This issue will not go away.
First, even the scientists who achieved the latest success believe strongly
that embryonic-stem-cell research should continue. No one knows for sure
whether the new method of producing pluripotent cells will pan out or where
the next big developments will come from. We are still many thresholds away
from anything that can be of practical value to me and others.
Scientifically, it makes no sense to abandon any promising avenue just
because another has opened up.
Second, even if this were a true turning point in stem-cell research, people
like me are not going to quickly forget those six lost years. I am 56. Last
year I had a kind of brain surgery that dramatically reduces the symptoms of
Parkinson's. It received government approval only five years ago. Every year
that goes by, science opens new doors, and every year, as you get older and
your symptoms perhaps get worse, doors get shut. Six years of delay in a
field moving as fast as stem-cell research means a lot of people for whom
doors may not open until it is time for them to shut.
Third, although the political dilemma that stem cells pose for politicians
is real enough, the moral dilemma is not and never was. The embryos used in
stem-cell research come from fertility clinics, which otherwise would
discard them. This has been a powerful argument in favor of such research.
Why let these embryos go to waste? But a more important point is, What about
fertility clinics themselves? In vitro fertilization ("test-tube babies")
involves the purposeful creation of multiple embryos, knowing and intending
that most of them either will die after implantation in the womb or, if not
implanted, will be discarded or frozen indefinitely. Even if all
embryonic-stem-cell research stopped tomorrow, this far larger mass
slaughter of embryos would continue. There is no political effort to stop
it. Bush even praised in vitro fertilization in his 2001 speech about the
horrors of stem-cell research. In vitro has become too popular for
politicians to take on. But their failure to do so makes a mockery of their
alleged agony over embryonic stem cells.
Finally, the position a politician takes on an issue tells you something
about his or her character, values and intellect. And that understanding
doesn't disappear even if the issue itself does. Over the past six years,
Bush and most Republicans in Congress have done their best to stop medical
research that could cure many diseases, including one that I have. They
claimed that morality and ethics required no less, yet they demonstrated by
their indifference toward in vitro fertilization that they couldn't possibly
be serious about this. Now they hope that science will spring them from the
trap they walked into with full knowledge. Bush Administration apologists
even say the President deserves credit because he directed research away
from embryonic stem cells and encouraged scientists to look for more
acceptable alternatives. In fact, the new research would not have been
possible without the kind involving embryonic stem cells, which Bush
believes is immoral.
The stem-cell issue is going away? 'Fraid not.
___________________________________________
CAMR.friends mailing list
Rayilyn Brown
Board Member AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson's Foundation
[log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
