It has long been a part of the Democrats' fall playbook to attack Republicans and
President Bush in particular for being anti-progress on medical research issues. The centerpiece of their attack
has been Bush's refusal to use federal funds for research into embryonic stem cell use. It has been impossible
to "harvest" stem cells without killing the embryo that contains them. The Bush federal funding refusal
was based on the principle that killing a life to save a different life was morally unacceptable.
Finding his primary support among catholic and evangelical church leaders, Bush okayed adult stem cell and umbilical
cord stem cell research and private funding of embryonic stem cell research but denied access to federal grants
for embryonic cell research outside a limited set of existing cell lines.
Bolstered by Hollywood celebrities, the Democrats planned an extensive victimology campaign highlighting the diseases
that stem cell research would "cure" if only federal tax dollars flowed freely. With further research,
they would say, embryonic stem cells could be used to treat, perhaps even cure, patients with cancer, Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's disease, stroke, diabetes, arthritis, spinal cord injuries and other serious ailments. (Full disclosure:
the author and many generations of his family have experienced diabetes.)
At the end of August, three scientific studies were released that may take much of the politics out of the dilemma.
Adult Stem Cells. In the journal Cell, Japanese researchers announced that they have been able to
modify stem cells from adult mice to give them the promising characteristics of embryonic stem cells.
The researchers called the new stem cells "induced pluripotent stem cells" (iPS). Pluripotent is the
term that indicates cells can grow into any type of human cell.
Cord Blood Cells. In an interview in England, Dr. Peter Hollands, stated that "there is a source of
stem cells available at every birth of every child in the world which carries no risk at all to anyone in their
collection or production." That source is the placenta and the
umbilical cord available after a baby's birth. If collected instead of thrown away, the supply of cells would be
endless. Dr. Hollands, concerned about political decisions that affect science, points out that embryonic stem
cells have never been used to treat anyone and that there are no plans to do so.
Safe Embryonic Stem Cells. In the United States, Dr. Robert Lanza, of the private company Advanced Cell
Technology (ACT), announced a scientific breakthrough that allowed the firm to extract a stem cell from a human
embryo without damaging it.
Reporting in the current issue of Nature, ACT asserts that by using well-established, decade-old techniques,
a two-day old embryo (a fertilized egg with eight to ten cells). may be used. One cell is removed, leaving seven.
The one can be used to develop a stem cell colony. The seven can be implanted in vitro and a healthy baby develops
from such an embryo. No nascent human life has been destroyed.
The initial reactions to these promising announcements were unfortunately predictable. The status quo defenders
announced that they were unconvinced and preferred what they had now.
On the one hand, the moral distinction between destroying nascent human life and dedicating one cell to research
has yet to be made in detail. Individual cells are already used for testing purposes to identify genetic disorders
such as Down's Syndrome. The well-established procedure is called PGD (preimplantation genetic diagnosis).
On the other hand, entrenched funding interests opposed the new developments in defense of their current and prospective
research grants. Politicians in a number of states have set up funding programs in defiance of the federal ban.
One big example is California's Prop 71 which is a voter-approved program dedicating three billion dollars a year
in grant-making authority to a state government entity.
Doubts about the new approaches came swiftly from those who had claims on the grants and didn't want any new competition
- especially competition with plans and procedures that actually work.
Behind the Hollywood sheen, the technological facts indicate that embryonic stem cell approaches have failed (they
tend to produce tumors) and adult or cord blood approaches have succeeded.
With these new announcements, the thought here in Washington is that both parties will fall all over themselves
to fund something before the elections.
One of the major reasons there has been unrelenting pressure for more embryonic stem cell funding is that the embryonic
procedures have failed to result in actual workable therapies. Money spent on embryonic stem cells has shown no
practical reward so far. Failing in the marketplace of ideas, embryonic stem cell proponents have fallen back on
the government.
Political decisions seldom produce the best answers to the greatest need. Political funding of the least promising
procedures will further delay the progress of medicine. If the moral dilemma has been resolved, wasting money following
false paths is a poor response.
Time's awastin'.
August 25, 2006
