Cure May Be Dream, But ‘Promise Is Powerful’
Answering fundamental questions about human life is seldom easy. For example, to realize the promise of my own field -- heart and lung transplantation -- and at the same time to address the moral concerns introduced by the new science, we had to answer a fundamental question: What is death?
With time and a lot of discussion, a lot of careful thought and a lot of courage, a lot of boldness from many people who believe in the promise of transplant medicine but also understood the absolute necessity for a proper ethical framework, we answered that question and allowed science to advance and have since saved tens of thousands of lives.
So when I, as a heart transplant surgeon, remove that human heart from someone who is brain-dead and I place it in the chest of someone whose heart has failed them in order to give them new life, I do so within an ethical construct that honors dignity and respect for the individual, both the donor and the recipient.
Like transplantation, if we can answer the moral and ethical questions about stem cell research, I believe we will have the opportunity to save many lives and make countless others’ lives more fulfilling.
As we know, adult stem cell research is not controversial on ethical grounds, although embryonic stem cell research is.
Right now, to derive these embryonic stem cells, an embryo or a blastocyst, which many, including myself, consider nascent human life, must be destroyed.
But I also strongly believe, as do countless other scientists and clinicians and doctors, that embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific promise for some therapies and potential cures that adult stem cells just cannot provide.
My comprehensive set of 10 principles, as outlined, again, over four years ago, are as follows.
No. 1, ban embryo creation for research; 2, continue funding ban on derivation; 3, ban human cloning; 4, increase adult stem cell research funding; 5, provide funding for embryonic stem cell research only from blastocysts that would otherwise be discarded; 6, require a rigorous informed consent process; 7, limit the number of stem cell lines; 8, establish a strong public research oversight system; 9, require ongoing independent scientific and ethical review; 10, strengthen and harmonize fetal tissue research restrictions.
That is what I said four years ago, and that’s what I believe in today. After all, principles are meant to withstand the test of time, even when applied to a field so rapidly changing like that of stem cell research.
I’m a physician. My profession is healing. I’ve devoted my life to attending to the needs of the sick and suffering and promoting health and well-being. That’s me.
Now, adult stem cells meet certain medical needs. But embryonic stem cells, because of these very specific, these unique characteristics, meet other medical needs that I believe simply cannot be met today by adult stem cells. They especially offer hope -- and, again, still very early -- for treating a range of diseases that require tissue to regenerate or have function restored.
On Aug. 9, 2001, shortly after I had outlined my principles, President Bush announced his policy for embryonic stem cell research. His policy is fully consistent with the 10 principles that I just outlined, and so I have, as most people know, strongly supported it.
In my policy, as you’ve heard, I also propose restricting the number of cell lines, but I did not propose a certain cutoff date.
And I guess the question we must ask [is]: Over time, with a limited number of cell lines, would we be able to realize the full promise of embryonic stem cell research?
Now, when the president announced his policy four years ago, it was widely believed, and stated again and again, that there would be 78 embryonic stem cell lines available for federal funding.
This has proven not to be the case. Today, only 22 lines are eligible. Moreover, those lines, unexpectedly, after several generations, are starting to become less stable and less replicative than initially thought. They’re acquiring and losing chromosomes. They’re losing what is called the normal carrier type and are potentially losing growth control.
They’re also grown on mouse feeder cells, which we have learned since will likely limit their future potential for clinical therapy in humans. And in part that’s because of the potential for viral contamination or retroviral contamination.
While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very, very early stage, the limitations that were put in place in 2001 will over time slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases.
Therefore, I believe the president’s policy should be modified. We should expand federal funding and the accompanying NIH oversight and current guidelines governing stem cell research, carefully and thoughtfully staying within ethical bounds.
I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It’s at this moment that the organism is complete; yes, immature but complete.
An embryo is nascent human life. It’s genetically distinct. It’s biologically human. It’s living.
This position is consistent with my faith. But to me, it isn’t just a matter of faith, it’s a matter of science.
Our development is a continuous process, and it’s gradual and it’s chronological. We were all once embryos. The embryo is human life at that earliest stage of development. And accordingly, that human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and the utmost respect.
I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported. But just as I said back in 2001, it should advance in a manner that affords all human life dignity and respect; the same dignity and the same respect we bring to the table as we work with children and adults to advance the frontiers of health and medicine.
Congress must have the ability to fully exercise its oversight authority on an ongoing basis. And policy-makers, I believe, have a responsibility to reexamine stem cell research policy in the future and, if necessary, make adjustments.
So let me make it crystal clear: I strongly, strongly support newer alternative means of deriving and creating and isolating pluripotent stem cells, whether they’re true embryonic stem cells or stem cells that have all of these unique properties of embryonic stem cells.
With more federal support and emphasis, these newer methods, though still preliminary today, may offer huge, huge scientific and clinical payoffs.
And just as important, they may bridge the moral and ethical differences among people who now hold very different views on stem cell research because they totally avoid destruction of a human embryo.
No doubt the ethical questions over embryonic stem cell research are profound. They’re challenging. They merit serious debate and not just on the Senate floor, but all across America: at our dining room tables, in town squares, in our community centers.
We simply cannot flinch from the need to talk with each other again and again on this biomedical progress as it unfolds and as breakthroughs occur in the coming years.
The promise of the biomedical age is too profound for us to fail.
Mr. President, that’s why I believe it’s only fair on an issue of such magnitude that senators be given the respect and courtesy of having their ideas in this arena considered separately and cleanly instead of in a whirlwind of amendments and complicated parliamentary maneuvers. I’ve been working to bring this about for the last several months and will continue to do so.
And when we are able to bring this to the floor, we will certainly, certainly have a serious and a thoughtful debate. There are so many conflicting points of view, so much diversity in terms of viewpoints.
If your daughter has diabetes or your dad has Parkinson’s, if your sister has a spinal cord injury, your views will be swayed more powerfully than you can imagine by the hope that cure will be found in these magnificent cells recently discovered that today only originate in an embryo.
As a physician, one should give hope, but never false hope. Policymakers, similarly, should not overpromise and give false hope to those suffering from disease.
We must be careful to always stay within clear and comprehensive ethical and moral guidelines. The soul of our civilization and the conscience of our nation demand it.
Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream, but the promise is powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased energy and focus.
Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It’s time for a modified policy, the right policy for this moment in time.
*
Source: Congressional Quarterly Transcriptions
