One of the more passionate debates this election season has been about the use of Embryonic Stem Cells and the promise they hold for science and medicine, if embraced. I will admit that I have been aloof on the topic, and because of my lack of due diligence it has been one of the issues where I have taken a stance against the current administration.

I regret the fact that I have never truly delved into the issue now, as I am discovering that like most popular topics, the political spin-masters have made a mess of this one as well. ...not all is what it seems to be.

Recently Ron Reagan spoke at the Democratic National Convention on stem-cell research. "Whatever else you do come Nov. 2", he concluded his speech with. "I urge you, please, cast a vote for embryonic stem cell research." The purpose of his speech implied that unless we vote for Kerry, such miraculous science is beyond our grasp.

This is simply not true.

What is true is that President Bush decided that no Federal Funding would be spent on obtaining any new embryonic growth lines. Allow me to repeat myself: no Federal funding. For new growth lines. There are no restrictions on supporting any of the current embryonic lines, nor has current funding been reduced or taken away.

Private Enterprise is free to research as it will, and where profit is concerned you can be sure that they do.

What really irks some people is that, yes, this was a decision based in morals.

George W. Bush: I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet, and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer and considerable reflection. And I have found widespread disagreement.

On the first issue, are these embryos human life -- well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual, but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.

An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. Make no mistake, he told me, that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these, he said, because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation.

And to the other crucial question, if these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose -- I also found different answers. Many argue these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential. Others will argue there's no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.

At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.

As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields. As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We have arrived at that brave new world that seemed so distant in 1932, when Aldous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in what he called a "hatchery."

In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling, and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.

Despite the fact that it was based on morals, it does not appear as if President Bush has sacrificed our ability to move forward. Both the private sector and the Federal Government work hard on Embryonic Stem Cell Research as well as other alternatives like Adult Stem Cell Research, which is actually further along than its embryonic counterpart and far less caustic to the conservative ethicist. The president reminds us of this in the same speech.

George Bush: You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos -- from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placenta. And many scientists feel research on these type of stem cells is also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.

Ron Reagan is aware of the moral issues regarding embryonic research, and still feels that it is an avenue that cannot be ignored.

Ron Reagan: Yes, these cells could theoretically have the potential, under very different circumstances, to develop into human beings - that potential is where their magic lies. But they are not, in and of themselves, human beings. They have no fingers and toes, no brain or spinal cord. They have no thoughts, no fears. They feel no pain.

Surely we can distinguish between these undifferentiated cells multiplying in a tissue culture and a living, breathing person - a parent, a spouse, a child.

The issue remains a heated one. One side takes issues with morality and advises caution without preventing the research from taking place... the other condemns such caution, calling it unnecessary in the face of such a great reward, indeed, calls us cowards if we flinch in our moral responsibility to take the risk.

Others still seek political gain from such a murky issue and leverage themselves against a public unwilling to dig for their own answers. Ron Reagan, atheist and liberal, I can respect for his convictions. The are honest and challenge us to examine our morals, they do not deride or insult. Let's listen to how others seek to use the issue as a wedge between voters and the caution of a moral presidency:

Howard Dean: Hope takes the form of a potential cure, which means hope requires medical research, which some religious authorities may not like. Mrs. Reagan has the courage to stand up against the anti-scientific biases of many in the Republican Party and to call for science to be respected and hope to be restored.

Does Howard Dean expect us to believe that the Republican Party 1) Has an anti-scientific bias 2) has created an environment where science is disrespected and 3) has damaged "hope" in such a manner that it needs to be restored?

John Kerry: And now it's our time to ask: What if? What if we find a breakthrough to cure Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's and AIDs? What if we have a president who believes in science, so we can unleash the wonders of discovery like stem cell research to treat illness and save millions of lives?

Does Senator John Kerry expect us to believe that President Bush does not believe in science? Under President Bush's leadership, we cannot unleash the wonders of discovery and save millions of lives?

The obfuscation is not limited to just the political arena. Scientists themselves have encouraged the myth of miracle cures in the hopes of receiving public attention and funding. Of particular interest to Michael Reagan, is Alzheimer's disease.

Michael Reagan: To make matters worse, those arguing for embryonic stem cells have embarked on a campaign of disinformation, claiming that there are scientific reasons for believing that their research can be expected to lead to a cure for Alzheimer's disease.

Listen to what Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke told the Washington Post: "People need a fairy tale," he said, explaining why scientists have allowed society to believe wrongly that stem cells are likely to effectively treat Alzheimer's disease. He added "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."

A story line that is a flat out lie.

Writing in the Weekly Standard, lawyer, ethicist and human life advocate Wesley J. Smith reported that "Researchers have apparently known for some time that embryonic stem cells will not be an effective treatment for Alzheimer's, because as two researchers told a Senate subcommittee in May, it is a 'whole brain disease,' rather than a cellular disorder (such as Parkinson's). This has generally been kept out of the news. But now, Washington Post correspondent Rick Weiss, has blown the lid off of the scam, reporting that while useful abstract information might be gleaned about Alzheimer's through embryonic stem cell research, 'stem cell experts confess . . . that of all the diseases that may be someday cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit.'"

It seems that whether you want to win an election, make a moral point or garner attention to improve your chances at receiving funding... Sufferers of Brain related injuries and disease aren’t even at the front of the line when it comes to promoting Stem Cell Research.

The only thing that they have in common is that nobody is really against it when it comes down to brass tacks, but you wouldn't know that from listening to the news.

(Note: I'll come back in this evening and add all the hyperlinks)

Posted by Michael at August 2, 2004 08:15 AM

Posted by: altgofur at August 2, 2004 01:23 PM

Posted by: Michael Cummins at August 2, 2004 04:29 PM