Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[Voronwë the Faithful]

President Bush has exercised his veto power for the very first time in his presidency, rejecting legislation passed by Congress to expand federally supported embryonic stem cell research. The House was unable to override the veto, killing the measure, at least for this year.

This is a rare issue where Democrats are overwhelming united and Republicans are divided. Bush rejected calls from such prominent Republicans as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, former First Lady Nancy Reagan, and California Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger to let the bill go through. He vetoed the bill in a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, surrounded by babies born through in vitro fertilisation using so-called adopted embryos.

As the infants fidgeted in their parents' arms, Mr Bush said the bill violated his principles on the sanctity of human life by encouraging the destruction of embryos left over from fertilisation procedures.

It probably will come as no surprise that I believe that was a terrible decision that lets dogmatic 'principles' stand in the way of research that could have profound results in combating such debilitating health problems as diabetes and Alzheimer's (the latter explaining Mrs. Reagan's stance). But I am interested in learning more about the views of others about this difficult ethical issue. I am particularly interested in hearing the views of our more conservative members who are opposed to abortion, as there appears to be a split between those people who see a moral equivalence between the two issues (e.g. Mr. Bush) and those who oppose abortion but still support embryonic stem cell research (e.g. Sen. Frist, who was a surgeon before becoming a politician).

[yovargas]

He vetoed the bill in a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, surrounded by babies born through in vitro fertilisation using so-called adopted embryos.

Ugh. That disgusts me. Such cheap emotional appeals.

I support the research, as expected.

[Primula Baggins]

I am pro-choice (within some limits), but I would oppose deliberately obtaining eggs and fertilizing them for the purpose of research. However, the scientists' needs can be met using embryos that would not be used for any other purpose, that are about to be destroyed. I don't see why it's morally better to waste them. (There is not a huge market out there of women looking for donated embryos. Even women who need donated eggs tend to use their husbands' sperm to fertilize them.)

Would it be morally better to destroy the bodies of the dead because allowing organ donation might cause a black market in human tissue to spring up in the United States? Or do we trust the laws that prevent it, and use those organs to relieve human suffering?

[Lidless]

Exactly, Prim.

[truehobbit]

For me, the crux lies in federally supported stem cell research.

Stem cell research on "unused" embryos is going on all the time, and while I can't make up my mind whether it's immoral to produce the embryos in the first place, or to dispose of them in any manner, or whether it all doesn't make any difference, I do think that Bush was right to deny such doubtful procedures official public support.


(But, yes, "ick" about the baby-show going on around it.)

[Primula Baggins]

In the United States, hobby, just about all "pure" scientific research is federally supported, either directly because it's carried out at federal facilities, or indirectly through research grants. A university or institute that carries out research of which the government officially disapproves imperils its funding for all research and thus its very existence.

The Bush administration's stance is not a mere "seal of disapproval"; in this country, it's tantamount to preventing stem cell research, except at a few private foundations or where states approve funding of their own (though it is rarely a significant amount of money).

Also, most people in this country do not find the value or morality of these procedures doubtful.

[Impenitent]

What Prim said (both times).

I have a number of friends who used in vitro fertilisation to conceive (my brother and sister in law are one; my closest friend and her husband another - and her brother and his wife).

All couples had more embryos than could be implanted the first time (they implant two, hoping that at least one survives); the left over embryos were frozen with the intention of the couples using them at another time.

With my closest friend, they had the three left over embryos frozen and 10 months later, she conceived naturally - a very big surprise for them! They had two babies within 2 years. Due to their age and financial position, and state of health (her husband suffers from severe arthritis and is 55 years old) they did not intend to have a third child.

They were very concerned about their three frozen embryos, though. She couldn't think about just destroying them, but keeping them frozen perpetually is not only costly it was also a pointless and distasteful thing in her mind. She would have willingly given them to another woman (though that took some thinking too; there would be another child out there with the same genetic make up as her two daughters - an anonymous, unknown child) but there were no takers; she considered donating them for research purposes too, which is what she did in the end.

It's a difficult decision to make, when you come right down to facing it in your own life. It is a very personal moral and ethical dilemma and I dont' know what my decision would be if I had to make it.

I don't know what my sister & brother in law intend to do; they have only one embryo frozen now; and one beautiful baby girl.

[axordil]

The only problem that I have with stem cell research in general is my deep-rooted apprehension that, like most publically funded "big" biomedical research, is a long term handout to the drug companies who will eventually patent the processes and reap the profits.

[Ellienor]

Would it be morally better to destroy the bodies of the dead because allowing organ donation might cause a black market in human tissue to spring up in the United States? Or do we trust the laws that prevent it, and use those organs to relieve human suffering?

I think that is a particularly apt comparison, Prim. It seems that there are enough frozen embryos out there that are just going to be either actively destroyed or passively destroyed (by long term freezing--they lose viability the longer they are frozen). As Prim says, the number of women willing to carry these embryos to term is pretty limited and I have read that the amount of embryos vastly outnumbers the women who would be willing to carry them. If it were me in the position of having frozen embryos when my family was complete, I would be far happier knowing that they were being used for research and could eventually result in a cure or therapy for someone.

(but Voronwë--I am not the person you want to hear from particularly, since I am prochoice and a former biotechnology researcher to boot)

[Primula Baggins]

The only problem that I have with stem cell research in general is my deep-rooted apprehension that, like most publically funded "big" biomedical research, is a long term handout to the drug companies who will eventually patent the processes and reap the profits.

I'm sure you're right, and I'm no fan of the drug companies. But making those huge profits has motivated some pretty miraculous breakthroughs that might not have happened otherwise, or happened so soon. Some of them made my recent cancer treatment both more tolerable and more effective, and may possibly have made the difference that saved my life.

That's where they get you: "Your principles or your life!"

[Voronwë the Faithful]

(but Voronwë--I am not the person you want to hear from particularly, since I am prochoice and a former biotechnology researcher to boot)

I'm certainly interested in hearing everyone's opinions. (And it is ALWAYS a pleasure to here from you, Ellie). But I don't want to pretend that all of the "right" is on one side, because that is never the case. I'm interested in trying to understand different points of view. But I also know that it hard to speak up when virtually everyone else thinks (or feels) differently then you do.

[truehobbit]

In the United States, hobby, just about all "pure" scientific research is federally supported, either directly because it's carried out at federal facilities, or indirectly through research grants. A university or institute that carries out research of which the government officially disapproves imperils its funding for all research and thus its very existence.

The Bush administration's stance is not a mere "seal of disapproval"; in this country, it's tantamount to preventing stem cell research, except at a few private foundations or where states approve funding of their own (though it is rarely a significant amount of money).

I don't really understand that, Prim.
I've always supposed the US are leading the field in that kind of research - or isn't that so?
I might just be assuming it because in general, to my knowledge, they have always pushed the boundaries in fields of ethically unclear research (genetic engineering comes to mind).
So, if they've not had public support before now, and that's so important, how did they manage to do research up till now?

[axordil]

Prim--

Yeah, I know, despite being evil they save lives, including the lives of people I care about. It is a conundrum for me, though...paying to save one's life seems like extortion on one level. On the other hand, without some profit margin, there would be no one doing the work at all...

I guess the rub comes for me when the drug companies defend what look like obscene profit margins on one hand by saying that research is expensive, while at the same time pushing so hard for public funding of some of that research.

Worst case scenario (and true): Genentech has had a drug out for a while for cancer treatment. Since it works by suppressing blood vessel formation, as it turns out, it works quite well in very small doses for treating macular degeneration in the eye. But they won't ask for it to be certified for that use, because they've developed a chemically similar drug that is slightly more effective...and costs 25 times as much.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't really understand that, Prim.
I've always supposed the US are leading the field in that kind of research - or isn't that so?
I might just be assuming it because in general, to my knowledge, they have always pushed the boundaries in fields of ethically unclear research (genetic engineering comes to mind).
So, if they've not had public support before now, and that's so important, how did they manage to do research up till now?

hobby, my understanding (and hopefully someone who know more then I do will correct me) is that in August of 2001, President Bush allowed federal funding for research involving existing embryonic stem cell lines, but at the same time forbid federal funding for research that invoved the creation of any new embryonic stem cell lines. Apparently over time these lines degrade and become of limited or no use. The bill that was vetoed would have allowed federal funding for research that involved the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines.

[Primula Baggins]

The United States is not leading in that field, hobby, at least not since (as Voronwë posted) 2001, when researchers were limited to a few cell lines, many in poor shape or contaminated, and many unsuitable for diagnostic use (they were made by researchers, for research in vitro, and would be unsafe to inject into humans).

Cell lines do not last forever, unless there's something abnormal about their cell-division process—in other words, unless they're cancer cells. The HeLa cells that are widely used in research are from an incredibly aggressive cervical tumor that killed a woman named Helen Lawson, about fifty years ago.

The stem cell lines have a finite lifetime. and some are already dying out.

Up to 2001, though, I'm sure your assessment was correct.

[Rowanberry]

Well, I'm a scientist, and have the mind of one... so, it isn't difficult to guess that I don't oppose to stem cell research, unless it turns out to be used for unethical purposes like creating a race of superhumans or such.

I guess that the frontlines in this matter form very much according to when one believes individual life to begin. I'm not surprised of Bush's decision; after all, he's one of those who believe that life begins at conception, and I guess it's much for the same reason that in the predominantly Catholic countries of Europe (especally the more conservative ones in the east) there's also strong resistance for this kind of research. (To me, an embryo is nothing but a bunch of cells until it attaches into the womb and can really start developing, and even for some time after that.)

[MithLuin]

a terrible decision that lets dogmatic 'principles' stand in the way of research that could have profound results

Well, I do think that principles should guide research. I do not view ethics as 'the ends justifies the means', so I don't think all research that could be beneficial should be allowed solely for that reason. The whole point of research is that, while we hope for certain results, we don't know what they are yet . That is why we have all sorts of rules regulating what can (and cannot) be done, especially involving testing on humans.

In the case of embryonic stem cells, not everyone is in agreement as to what is at stake. A blob of cells that is going to be wasted anyway and a human life are two very different ideas. So, understandably, not everyone is in agreement that the principles Bush is advocating are valid. Fair enough. But I do think it only right that principles should guide ethics!

I do not support Embryonic stem cell research, because I do see the intentional destruction of a human embryo as taking a life. I (of course) do not have any qualms about research done on stem cells taken from the placenta, umbilical cord, or bone marrow - because this can be done without killing the donor.

But as you all know, I am Catholic, and am opposed to IVF in the first place. I don't think embryos should be created or destroyed in the lab, or for research purposes. So, I do not agree with Bush, either . See, you really can't win.....

Legally, there may be a way to prevent abuses, but giving the Federal OK to embryonic stem cell research basically brings up a host of ethical issues surrounding the beginnings (and destruction) of human life. It is okay to be cautious.

(And yes, JPII died of complications from Parkinson's, one of the diseases they hope to treat with stem cells).

[truehobbit]

Ah, thanks, Voronwë and Prim.
I guess over here we just tend to assume that the US lead the field wherever unusual research is being done. But I read a few days ago that the most uninhibited research is currently being done in England and China.

Mith, I completely agree with your post.
And I think you make two very important points: one being that stem cells can just as well be gained by ethically unquestionable means, the other that research that neglects to consider ethical principles is of course a horror.

[Lhaewin]

I mostly agree with you, Mith, and I see some of the problems of IVF and remaining embryos in my daily work, although I don´t completely object to it.

Stem cells from an embryo in an early stage can be used for any research, as they are not yet differenciated to serve a definite purpose in the future body. And, as they are existing anyway (because of IVF) and can also easily be gained in an unlimited amount, they seem to be the best choice.

Our hopes lie in the possibility to fight diseases more efficiently in the future. Business is being made already in Germany (and I don´t know about other countries). Certain companies offer future parents to gain umbilical stem cells and freeze them, just in case the child will get leukemia and a transplantation would help. What they don´t tell the parents is that you probably can´t use these stem cells as they carry the same genetic code which includes the one for leukemia. They take between 1500 and 2000 Euros from the parents and offer some Euros to the hospitals and midwives to gain the cells.

So I am afraid that drug companies and laboratories will take a huge advantage of a liberalization of the laws and that the results are anything but certain.

Clear rules and regulations are necessary, but it´s a long way to go.

[Cerin]

There's an interesting fight gearing up here in Missouri, where the Republicans dominate the state legislature. There's to be a referendum on the ballot (which is rather wordy and I wonder if people will be clear on what their 'yes' or 'no' will mean). It essentially guarantees (if passed) that Missouri will be allowed to pursue stem cell research according to whatever federal guidelines are established. There was apparently a state bill proposed at some point (don't know if it was made law) that criminalized stem cell research here and Missourians who benefitted from it (hope I have that right).

Anyway, the coalition advocating the 'yes' vote is saturating TV with a very professional-looking half-hour commercial. I haven't taken the time to watch the whole thing. What got my attention was the fact that former Sen. Danforth is part of the coalition, and he is well respected here as a conservative. I heard on the news that the 'anti' faction began mobilizing over the weekend at various churches, so I wonder what, if anything, they will come up with to combat the 'pro' commercial.

Meanwhile, Sen. Talent (ultra conservative) is in some hot water over the issue with his religious-right base, since he has apparently mitigated his once extreme stance somewhat and withdrew his sponsorship from a recent Senate bill; his Dem. challenger is showing stronger than expected support in the polls.

(Hope this isn't too off-topic.)