Bush's Stem Cell Plan Gets Mixed Review

Compromise to fund limited embryo research prompts optimism, outcry

FRIDAY, Aug. 10, 2001 (HealthDayNews) -- President Bush's decision to allow limited federal funding of embryonic stem cell research has the hallmark of a pure compromise: It has provoked approval and disdain from those on both sides of the debate.

After months of deliberating, Bush last night announced his tightly qualified support for research on stem cells derived from human embryos. The president said he wouldl limit government funding to only 60 existing lines of embryo-derived stem cells, and ruled out research that would involve the creation of additional embryos.

Supporters of the research expressed cautious optimism that the work could go forward in a meaningful way for patients and scientists.

"We're happy that the door is open, and we want to move forward," actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's disease, told ABC-TV's "Good Morning America."

Ruth Kirschstein, acting director of the National Institutes of Health, called the approach Bush outlined "sound."

Dr. Lorenz Studer, head of stem cell and tumor biology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said he's "relieved" by Bush's funding proposal because a complete ban "would have been disastrous."

"We can live with his proposition, with a few problem points," added Studer. "But in general, I think it is definitely a good start, and we will be able to do good work."

Studer, however, said that there is a major concern about whether the number of cell lines Bush has agreed to fund work on -- if that many indeed exist -- will be sufficient to support all the patients who need them. Some lines may get lost or prove to be useless, he says.

Another pitfall, Studer added, is that many of these lines are in the hands of private companies, who may handcuff scientists who want to study them. "We would obviously want to be completely free in the way we do our research and not depend on a company," he said.

On the other hand, Bush's proposal, which softened a more rigid stance he outlined to pro-life activists in recent days and during last year's campaign, angered many religious conservatives, who equate the destruction of frozen embryos with abortion.

Bishop Joseph Fiorenza, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called the proposal "morally unacceptable," adding that it fosters "a disrespect for human life."

Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, told the New York Times that the president "can no longer describe himself as pro-life."

C. Ben Mitchell, senior fellow at the conservative Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity in Chicago, took a middle road.

The decision is "not as bad as it could have been but not as good as it should have been," said Mitchell, whose group opposes any work on embryos.

"I think that politically it may be a useful compromise, but [Bush] had moral convictions that he said would not be influenced by politics, and I'm discouraged that he would take the political compromise rather than sticking with his early convictions," he added.

But Mitchell said his group is encouraged by the "bright, strong line" Bush drew to bar the destruction of additional human embryos. He also said he's "very pleased" that the president mentioned funding for experiments on other sources of stem cells.

And Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), an outspoken abortion foe who supports federal funding for stem cell research, told CNN that Bush's compromise was "a thoughtful, decent honorable decision."

Bush's televised address -- the first since his inauguration -- also called for the establishment of a Council on Bioethics, to be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a conservative medical ethicist at the University of Chicago. The panel will take the moral pulse of future advances in biomedicine, behavioral science and technology.

The president also spoke out forcefully against human cloning, saying most Americans "recoil" at the idea.

Bush said his decision to fund limited research centered on two central questions: "First, are these frozen embryos human life and therefore something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?"

Recent polls have found that Americans generally approve of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Stem cells can, with proper chemistry, be pushed into becoming virtually any tissue in the body, from heart muscle to skin. They have been heralded as possible therapy for several ills and injuries, including Parkinson's disease, heart failure, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes and spinal cord damage.

Scientists draw stem cells not only from embryos but also from umbilical cords and even adult tissue. Evidence suggests, however, that embryonic stem cells are the most versatile, although in the process of deriving them the embryos are destroyed.

Bush's decision doesn't affect privately financed work on embryonic stem cells. However, many scientists have argued that depriving researchers of federal dollars will drive them into the private sector and retard the pace of experiments with little or no commercial value.

Nor does the move apply abroad. Critics have expressed fears that it would leave the United States struggling to keep up with scientists in Europe and other parts of the world that more freely permit research on embryos.

What To Do

To learn more about stem cells, try the National Institutes of Health or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

You can also visit the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research.

For more on bioethics matters, check out Bioethics.net.

Related Stories

No stories found.
logo
www.healthday.com