Stem cells

Cloning bad religion

August 6, 2005

Senator Bill Frist started a political firestorm last week when he came out in support of an embryonic stem cell bill sponsored by Reps. Diana Degette and Michael Castle. The bill—which has already passed in the House—authorizes federal funding for medical research that uses stem cells derived from In Vitro Fertilization embryos unused by fertility clinics. These are embryos that will be destroyed whether or not they are used for stem cell research. The rampant speculation that Frist is moving to the center before the 2008 presidential election may be valid, but the right-wing vitriol he has inspired illustrates that his decision to go against his party and the president is not without consequences. Frist should be commended for having the courage to do what the doctor inside him knew was right all along.

 MYTH:  The stem cell bill before Congress will make murderers of us all

This means the federal government would promote what many citizens see as a grave evil: the deliberate destruction of nascent human life. The legislation, which President Bush has promised to veto, would make embryo destruction a nationally sponsored project. It is a most immoderate approach to a morally weighty issue…

To promote embryo destruction and still claim to be "pro-life," as Frist did throughout his speech is absurd…

-- Eric Cohen and William Kristol, Frist’s Stem Cell Capitulation, The Weekly Standard, 08/08/05

Many backing embryonic stem cell research argue that a fertilized egg cannot be considered even partially human until it is implanted in a woman's uterus. But these same people oppose any restrictions on partial birth abortion, so their argument is morally inconsistent. They would not protect the unborn at any stage of development.

-- Cal Thomas, Senator Frist’s Grave Mistake, Townhall, 08/01/05

REALITY

Debates about when life begins are generally not worth having, because there is very little middle ground. But the current stem cell debate does not have to be reduced to a debate about abortion, as Senator Frist has demonstrated. You can oppose abortion but support this bill. Kristol and Cohen disagree. They claim that it is inconsistent to assert that life begins at conception while supporting federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using IVF embryos. According to this logic, it is equally inconsistent to believe that life begins at conception but to approve of abortion when the mother’s life is at stake, or when rape or incest led to the pregnancy. More importantly, if Kristol and Cohen truly believe that embryonic stem cell research constitutes a “grave evil,” then they should be calling for Bush’s head too because he is allowing this destruction of human life continue. How can they demonize Frist for seeking federal funding to destroy life without rebuking Bush for failing to call for an outright ban on embryonic stem cell research?  If stem cell research is murder, and it is allowed to continue in the United States, then surely the President is complicit. And where is the outrage over the Republican Governor of California approving an initiative that directs $3 billion towards “the murder of innocent embryos?”

The fact is that, whether or not these spare IVF embryos are used for stem cell research, they will be destroyed anyway. So the question is:  Should they be destroyed in such a way that has no value whatsoever, or should their inevitable destruction contribute to medical research? The answer is obvious.  

MYTH:  Expanding stem cell funding to include embryonic stem cells will make little difference

It is immoderate partly because it is so unnecessary. When it comes to stem cell research, there are many sources of support…

Why not support the current national policy, which neither funds nor bans embryo research? And why call for funding research on the so-called "spare embryos" without first demanding limits on other, even more egregious projects--such as creating and destroying embryos solely for research…?

-- Eric Cohen and William Kristol, Frist’s Stem Cell Capitulation, The Weekly Standard, 08/08/05

McKay was explaining why scientists have allowed society to believe wrongly that stem cells are the magic bullet for curing all sorts of diseases, from Alzheimer's to Parkinson's. Are scientists willing to allow the public to believe a lie and to destroy what few remaining protections exist for human life?

-- Cal Thomas, Senator Frist’s Grave Mistake, Townhall, 08/01/05

REALITY

The medical community is nearly unanimous in its assertion about embryonic stem cells.  According to the National Institutes of Health: “Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent—that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent—restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be.” Embryonic stem cells have the potential to develop into every type of cell in the body while the development of adult stem cells is thought to be confined to a limited number of cell types. Consequently, embryonic stem cells have a much greater potential for use in cell therapy.

Kristol and Cohen note that embryonic stem cell research is not against the law.  Anyone who wants to conduct embryonic stem cell research may do so; they just have to find private funding. This argument is disingenuous at best. With a budget of $29 billion this year, the NIH is in a unique position to take the lead on stem cell research. As the driving force of medical research in this country, its leadership is essential. Unless Pfizer discovers that embryonic stem cell research cures erectile dysfunction, there is little reason for optimism that private companies will make meaningful progress in embryonic stem cell research.