End Hypocrisy on Stem Cell Tests
Congress does not often have the opportunity to fight hypocrisy, light an ethical path and promote health in one blow. But it does now.
The Stem Cell Research Act, sponsored by Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), would permit federal funding for research involving not only the use of stem cells but also their derivation--that is, removing the cells from embryos discarded by fertility clinics and culturing the cells.
In the 18 months since researchers at the University of Wisconsin announced that they had succeeded in culturing embryonic stem cells--the master cells that generate all the other tissues of the body--excitement has been building in the scientific community about the awe-inspiring opportunities these cells present for advancing basic biological knowledge. While the media have played up the possibility that stem cells might someday stave off the aging process, their major potential lies in curing cancer, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases and even spinal cord injuries for which adequate therapies do not now exist.
With this sort of promise, the National Institutes of Health normally would be a major supporter of both basic and applied research in this field. But that has not been the case because of congressional prohibitions on funding of any research in which a human embryo would be created or destroyed. Despite this ban, NIH last year concluded it could fund research using already existing human stem cells, provided that the original research that produced them had not involved federal funding.
The Wisconsin research that produced the stem cells in 1998 was funded by the Geron Corp., a Menlo Park, Calif., biotech firm. The university has recently set up a subsidiary to market the cells, subject to Geron’s licensing rights, both to scientists conducting basic research and to those trying to find commercial applications. NIH has argued that it can fund the use of stem cells, despite the congressional ban, because these cells are not in themselves embryos and hence are not covered by the ban.
NIH has drawn up special guidelines to govern such research. Not only must the cells come from discarded frozen embryos that were created for fertility (not research) purposes, but couples and clinics could not be paid for the embryos, removing any incentive to create excess embryos. While the limitations are sensible enough, they have been attacked by right-to-life groups, and leading conservatives in Congress have called on NIH to drop its plans to fund the stem cell research.
NIH would have an easier time answering these critics if its position didn’t seem so disingenuous. NIH argues that funding research that uses human embryonic stem cells does not involve it in the prohibited activity of funding the destruction of embryos. Yet researchers using stem cells will pay some of their federal dollars directly to those who create the stem cells. Moreover, NIH’s denial of involvement is belied by its own proposed rules which, in setting ethical standards for the process of deriving the cells, implicitly acknowledge that involvement. Trying to draw a line between research involving “use” and “derivation” of stem cells also makes for bad science. At this early stage in embryonic stem cell research, the best results can be expected if those conducting studies with the cells are free to derive the cells themselves or to work closely with colleagues who do so.
The National Bioethics Advisory Commission last September concluded that the approach being followed by NIH “could severely limit scientific and clinical progress.” The commission recommended altering the ban to permit federal financing--under strict conditions of public oversight and reporting--of studies that both derive cell lines from discarded embryos and use those cells. The Senate bill establishes rules for permissible research that would place the creation of stem cells from embryos on the same footing as the creation of comparable cells from aborted fetuses, which is permitted under federal funding law.
Like an aborted fetus, an embryo that has been discarded by a fertility clinic has no possibility of becoming a human being. While destruction of a human embryo under any circumstances is troubling to many people, the destruction in this case follows, as a matter of moral reality, from the prior decision to discard the embryo, not from the research in which stem cells will be created.
NIH’s present posture actually encourages unregulated embryo research in commercial laboratories. Rather than blocking NIH’s attempt to ensure ethical standards for stem cell research--including full disclosure and informed consent of couples donating embryos from fertility programs--Congress should enact the Specter-Harkin bill. Allowing the NIH to play its usual leadership role would maximize the payoff, not only in terms of health and knowledge but also of ethics.
