Stem Cell Debate Gets Hotter

From LifeDate - Fall 2004.

The Stem Cell Debate Gets Hotter - What We Need to Do about It
by Nigel M. de S. Cameron

Nancy Reagan’s recent intervention in the debate over federal funding of destructive embryo stem cell research has given fresh heart to those pressure groups, celebrities, and biotech enthusiasts who are seeking to overturn President Bush’s careful policy compromise, which he announced to the nation in his first televised broadcast as president, on August 9, 2001.

It is plain that the administration is not going to change its policy. What we need to understand is that there is so much misunderstanding abroad that it is proving difficult for honest people to come to honest conclusions. The press is now focusing on the allegations that conservatives in the religious community are changing their view. Perhaps some are. Many have never thought seriously about this matter and are anxious about sick relatives and the need to cure diseases. It’s never been more important for those of us who have thought long and hard about these issues to get the word out and clarify the thinking of the nation.

Here are some of the common misunderstandings, some of which have been deliberately, shamelessly purveyed by the press and advocates of destructive embryo research:

Myth 1: The Bush Administration Banned Stem Cell Research

There is no federal law banning stem cell research of any kind. There has long been a ban imposed by Congress on federal funding of destructive embryo research. This ban was enforced by the Clinton administration. President Bush’s decision of August 2001 was in fact a liberalization of that ban and it was denounced by some conservative groups as a result. The Bush decision permitted funding of embryo stem cell research. The permission extended to cell lines cultured from embryos that had already been destroyed, so that there would be no encouragement to destroy further embryos. And, of course, there is no restriction at all on “adult” stem cell research.

Myth 2: Cures are Right Around the Corner if only the Administration Changes It’s Mind

One of the cruelest myths ever put out by the press is this one. Whatever has been said, the implication is clear: aunts and uncles and parents who are now sick could be cured, perhaps even President Reagan could have been saved, and all that stands in the way is this funding ban. It does not take much intelligence to see the many fallacies here. Even the more honest advocates of embryo stem cell research have admitted that cures are a long, long way off. This is patently clear to those who have followed the animal experiments, which have so far yielded very little evidence of cures and many problems. But the proof lies in the market place. If the hype were to be believed, and a whole new world of cures were on our doorstep, there would be massive investment from venture capitalists pouring into embryo stem cell work, major pharma corporations, and start up IPOs. Economics is an interesting study: the market values commodities (including information) in a ranking summing up the value scales of individuals, which lead to conclusions that determine prices, assessments of risk, and investments. The markets have spoken on this issue and the best informed people around, the biotech investors, have taken a walk. And, of course, that is why there is such pressure for public money.

Myth 3: Adult Stem Cells are Second Best

I gave a presentation at the Experimental Biology conference in Washington, D.C. a few weeks ago, where I was surveying the ethical pros and cons of stem cell research. Alongside me were other speakers who are experts in embryo and stem cell research. The embryo research expert talked about basic research. The adult stem cell expert, on the other hand, talked about patients with what had been thought to be incurable diseases going home from the hospital cured. (If you want to read some of the latest research, go to www.stemcellresearch.org and tell your friends, pastor, physician, neighbors, local newspaper, congressman, kids, sick relatives, state representatives, mailman–everyone you know–to go there and read the facts.)

Myth 4: They Only Want to Use the “Spare” Embryos that will Die Anyway

The entire celebrity-led, emotionally driven case for using embryos for research has been built on the idea that it will result in one on one medications, using embryo derived tissue to regenerate and replace tissue cells that have gone bad. This is what has been deceitfully called “therapeutic cloning” and involves mass production of embryos by the hundreds of millions and the production of an identical twin for each patient so that the twin embryo can be destroyed to produce the cure. This idea is horrific, and the horror is by no means confined to pro-lifers.

In fact, therapeutic cloning has already been banned in many countries. The Germans, who know a thing or two about where science can go wrong, banned it in 1990. Australia banned it last year. The latest country to ban the procedure was Canada, where the ban was finalized in April of this year. The French are next in line. The United States is among the many countries supporting Costa Rica’s attempt to get an international convention banning cloning through the UN. Among the big democracies, only the UK, which has been in the pro-embryo research lead for 25 years, is in favor of therapeutic cloning. Here in the United States, the Brownback Landrieu bill to ban cloning is languishing in the Senate, even though its equivalent (Weldon Stupak) has twice passed the House with a huge bipartisan majority.

So the “spare embryo” argument is a red herring. In any case, these embryos should be adopted and given a chance to live. And we should stop freezing embryos. To be stored in deep frozen vats is not a proper use of the God’s gift of life.

What Can We Do?

We need to get these arguments and the facts behind them into our local media and into the mailbags and offices of our local politicians. We need to get them out through the churches. One of the greatest debates of our generation—some would say, the greatest—is the struggle for human dignity in the face of these amazing, and potentially terrible, new technologies. Pro-life Christians need to be in the forefront, and that means all of us! Visit www.cloninginformation.org, and www.stemcellresearch.org . . . And, whatever your politics, support President Bush’s stem cell funding policy.

(Nigel M. de S. Cameron is the director of the Council for Biotechnology Policy and dean of the Wilberforce Forum. The Council for Biotechnology Policy (CBP) is a non partisan, nonprofit coalition of academics, ethicists, and scientists committed to seeking substantial policy solutions for scientific and cultural issues related to bioethics and human dignity. The Council has already taken a lead in shaping the policy debates on cloning and stem cell research, although the scope of its concern extends to any technology that threatens to corrupt human dignity.)

(Biotech Policy, July 2004)