New Allies for Cell Research
Couples having trouble conceiving a child may wonder whether their insurance covers infertility treatments. They don’t wonder whether they have a right to treatment at all, even though some treatments produce extra human embryos, more than 400,000 of which lie in frozen storage. Most are likely be discarded. Opponents of putting those embryos, the width of a human hair, to scientific use call it murder. But protesters don’t wait in the streets near fertility labs as they do near abortion clinics.
This sort of ethical schizophrenia is one force behind gathering demands that the government support research on the many possible medical uses of embryonic stem cells. The most promising research paths concern Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, muscular dystrophy, diabetes and cystic fibrosis. Former First Lady Nancy Reagan, long a quiet supporter of stem cell research, has gone public. She movingly describes the loss of her husband to Alzheimer’s, even as his body still lives.
A bipartisan congressional delegation will meet with key Bush administration advisors today in hope of persuading the president to ease a ban on federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells. By studying how these master cells differentiate into muscle, brain and other specialized human tissues, researchers may learn how to grow cells that will treat diseases.
President Bush’s decision nearly three years ago was to let federally funded researchers study 64 embryonic stem cell lines created before his August 2001 cutoff date. A few were added later, but most of the approved lines are either unavailable or contaminated with mouse “feeder cells.” Researchers studying whether adult stem cells can be used instead are concluding that adult cells are not nearly as plentiful or biologically powerful as once hoped.
Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), a doctor and strong opponent of embryo research, recently said, “Let the private sector fund it, because taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for what many think is unethical.” Along with curtailing research, that road could be reckless. It would not curb the “anything goes” competitive urges of private research and would focus effort only on the biggest potential moneymakers.
The publicly financed research that congressional supporters propose would provide rules and monitoring. Funding would be limited to embryos from fertility clinics. Donors would have to offer informed consent and could not be paid.
In recent months, even some of Bush’s closest anti-abortion allies, including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), have pushed for a policy change. Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-San Diego) said last week: “I’m pro-life. Been pro-life for 14 years. But this is an area in which we can save lives.” Not only that, but keep key researchers and projects in the United States.
The moral decision is between putting these few-celled embryos in the trash and using them to possibly bring back lost memory, keep people out of wheelchairs or free them from a lifetime of insulin injections. It is not a simple decision, but it is also not a close call.
