Regarding the Pending Stem Cell Votes in the Senate
I have heard from people requesting that I post my thoughts about the upcoming Senate votes on funding embryonic stem cell research, funding "alternative sources" for deriving pluripotent stem cells, and the ban on "fetal farming." So, here goes:
The vote to increase funding for ESCR is just so much hype. With existing federal, state, and private funding, ES cell scientists already have more money available than they can spend at the moment. Moreover, the bill will not become law while President Bush is in office, since he will exercise his first veto. The media will huff and puff but I don't think it will hurt the president politically since he is merely keeping a campaign promise.
I do note with some amusement (and no surprise) the very personal attack against the credibility of my good friend David Prentice by the forces of Big Biotech. David has worked very hard to make the world aware of the potential for adult stem cell research, and this attack is clearly timed for the Senate vote. (See the Do No Harm Web site for an initial response.) Apparently, David has drawn blood by pointing out that adult stem cells are treating human ailments either in clinical settings, or more often, in early human trials around the world. Scientists can't say anything like that about ES cells since they are unsafe, at present, for human use.
The big news for me is the bill to fund alternative sources of stem cells, which is expected to pass by a huge margin, followed quickly by a House vote. This is a personal triumph for my good friend Bill Hurlbut who has worked intensely for years to raise the level of public awareness about this possibility. The bill would not only fund animal research into altered nuclear transfer (ANT), which is Bill's project, but other innovative approaches as well, such as the potential to revert a patient's own cells into an embryonic stem cell state.
The ban on fetal farming is important because it draws a first line in the sand, which is only the beginning of an important process aimed at ensuring that biotechnology does not run out of control. This bill will also pass easily, perhaps unanimously, followed by an immediate vote in the House.
My understanding is that President Bush will sign the two bills and veto the one at an East Room ceremony at the White House on Wednesday. I have been invited to attend the President's speech, which I was honored to accept. I will post my reaction to what he has to say when I return from Washington.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 4:12 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
Thanks for writing. ANT, if it works, would not create a disabled embryo. It would create the moral equivalent of a somatic cell line, only the cells would be pluripotent. I support animal testing of the process to see if it can actually be done. I have taken no position on doing the procedure with humans. Nor has Bill Hurlbut, for that matter. If it did create an embryo for use and destruction, I would not support it. For more info, check out Bill Hurlbut's work and the report of the President's Council on alternative methods.
ESCR with leftover IVF embryos treats nascent human life like a harvestable crop. I object. But my real issue is human cloning and ESCR is the gateway to using that technology in humans--as we have already seen.
I find it ironic in the extreme that scientists supposedly find it objectionable to create ANT non embryos but perfectly fine (if it can be done) to create true human embryos asexually for use in research. Also, the NAS "ethical" guidelines would also permit creating natural embryos for use in research, which we were once told would not happen. Odd value system.
In any event, thanks for contributing.
Indeed. Caplan and Melton disdain Hurlbut because he has effectively focused the world on the potential moral cost of using embryos as commodities.
My understanding is that no embryo is created because the organizational capacity never develops. This remains to be seen. As I said, the idea is to do animal testing to see what it looks like. If it turns out that the process creates a "disabled embryo," it will not be supported. If it turns out that it creates no such thing, it may well be.
But realize, ANT isn't the only avenue that could prove to be an alternative to ESCR. For example, I am excited about the prospect of reverting a patient's somatic cells to an embryonic stem cell state.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home