|
EDITORIAL Watching from sidelines as science marches on EDITORIAL BOARD AUSTIN AMERICAN STATESMAN
Monday, August 08, 2005
Reports last week that a South Korean scientist had successfully cloned a dog underlined a fact about biological research: We can debate the morality of such issues as cloning and stem cells as long as we wish, but science will not wait on the outcome. While we in the United States talk, someone in the world acts.In his first year as president, George W. Bush set a national policy of not using federal funds to pay for research on human embryonic stem cells, except for the few lines already under study. The effect was to sharply curtail such research in the United States. The moral objection to such research was that stem cells — which can grow into any kind of body tissue — are derived from a human embryo, when it is about five days old and has about 100 cells. The embryo dies in the process. Sounds horrible until you consider that such embryos would be destroyed anyway. Still, because the embryo is human in origin, religious and some other conservatives regard its death as an immoral killing.
But the potential benefit of stem cell research is great. Scientists have high hopes that medicines and treatments derived from embryonic stem cell research could cure or reduce the effects of diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, or help people replace damaged internal organs or spinal cords. And it's not just scientists who are excited by such possibilities, but the victims of disease and injury and their families.Some hope to reap the benefits of stem cells but avoid the moral problem by using stem cells derived from adults. But scientists don't know yet, without doing the research, whether adult cells can be as effective as stem cells from embryos. The Texas House has approved a measure that includes $41.1 million for a medical research facility at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. The school has promised to focus — for now — only on adult human and animal stem cell experiments. However, there's no promise to never conduct embryonic stem cell research. The bill awaits action in the Senate. Any state or nation that shuns cutting-edge biological research on such things as stem cells risks losing substantial intellectual capital. While the federal government has restricted funding for embryonic stem cell research, California voters last year approved a $3 billion bond issue to support research with no such limitation. Texas now seems torn between its religious conservatives and its devotion to economic growth. The U.S. House has passed a bill to allow federally funded stem cell research on an estimated 400,000 embryos marked for disposal by fertility clinics.On July 30, Sen. Bill Frist, the U.S. Senate Republican majority leader and a heart transplant surgeon, upset many in his party and religious conservatives by announcing he would support expanded federal support for embryonic stem cell research.
"Embryonic stem cells have specific properties that make them uniquely powerful and deserving of special attention in the realm of medical science," Frist said. With Congress in recess, the Senate cannot consider the stem cell bill until at least September. The Senate should approve it. The White House has threatened a veto. The president should reconsider, weighing not just the moral status of embryos, which feel and know nothing, but the pain and suffering of those with diseases and injuries. And one more question the president should consider: If scientists carrying out embryonic stem research overseas or even under state sponsorship here find a cure for a disease, or a way to grow new organs or repair damaged spinal cords, will he attempt to block Americans from using them on the grounds that they were immorally discovered? Americans wouldn't stand for that.If we're going to use treatments discovered from embryonic stem cell research, what is achieved by shunning the work required to find them?
Ellen Arnold
Jim Arnold & Associates
512 477-4232
|