Fetal Tissue Research Ban Attacked : Health: Former HHS chief Otis R. Bowen says the policy is a ‘mistake.’ He also criticizes Bush’s alternative to overturning the moratorium.

Former Health and Human Services Secretary Otis R. Bowen on Tuesday called a controversial moratorium on fetal tissue research--first imposed while he was secretary--a “mistake” and urged speedy approval of legislation that would overturn it.

He also opposed as “medically unworkable” a compromise proposal by President Bush to encourage the research as long as it was conducted only with tissue obtained through ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages rather than through elective abortions.

Bowen, who was secretary when the ban was imposed by the Ronald Reagan Administration in 1988, said he was driven to rejoin the public debate out of concern that the science was being tainted by politics.

“For the past few years, I have been out of public life, but I feel compelled to come back into the political sphere to talk about a world where politics should have no place: the world of scientific research,” he said.

Bowen’s comments came as the House was poised to approve legislation that would overturn the ban on fetal tissue research. The Senate is expected to follow suit. The provision is contained in legislation that reauthorizes other research programs by the National Institutes of Health.

The bill already has bipartisan backing on Capitol Hill--including that of numerous abortion foes who view medical research using fetal tissue as life-affirming--and supporters predicted that Bowen’s remarks would sway wavering House members who oppose abortion but are impressed by the promise of the research.

Approval by Congress would set the stage for an almost certain showdown with the President, who has said he would veto the measure. So far, Congress has been unable to override any of Bush’s 28 vetoes.

The ban, which has been the focus of an intense national debate, has pitted medical researchers and disease-fighting organizations against certain anti-abortion forces.

Medical experts have said the research--which uses tissue from aborted fetuses--ultimately could benefit patients with Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, Huntington’s disease, spinal cord injuries and a host of other conditions.

Fetal tissue is especially adaptive to transplantation, and scientists hope transplanted fetal cells will take over the functions of diseased or destroyed cells.

But opponents of abortion have maintained that fetal tissue, because it is obtained from what they term an “immoral” procedure, is tainted and should not be used for research or medical treatment.

The opponents also say that if it is allowed to continue, such research will only encourage more women to undergo abortions. The proposed legislation contains numerous safeguards to prevent this, however, including one provision that forbids “directed donation” of such tissue to anyone, including relatives.

Last week, in an attempt to erode House support for the bill, the White House announced that it had ordered establishment of a national bank and registry to store fetal tissue from miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies (pregnancies in Fallopian tubes or outside the womb) for research. The White House hopes the bank will be an ethically acceptable alternative to the resumption of fetal research using tissue from elective abortions.

Such a plan is unlikely to have any practical impact, however, because it is already legal for scientists to use such tissue.

Bowen, a physician, said the Bush proposal “would be unable to provide tissue free from infections and genetic defects. Such tissue has always been unaffected by the ban, but the problems of quality and availability are so insurmountable that research has come to a halt.”

Dr. James O. Mason, assistant secretary for health and the Administration’s chief spokesman against the bill, questioned whether Bowen “had the full information” on the bank proposal.

“Dr. Bowen has my total respect, and he has a heart of gold,” Mason said. “But I don’t think that heart should block a pro-research initiative that is doable and ethical. I wouldn’t be pushing for this bank if I didn’t think it were feasible.”