Bush to Fund Stem Cell "Alternatives" Research

I had heard this was in the offing: When President Bush vetoes the bill today that would overturn his embryonic stem cell federal funding policy, he will also sign an executive order intended to ultimately fund research into "alternatives," to destructive embryonic stem cell research, e.g., altered nuclear transfer (ANT), "regression" (reverting differentiated cells into stem cells), using "dead" embryos, etc.

The New York Times story presents the story as if it is a mere political ploy to deflect criticism from his veto, complete with the views of skeptical pro ESCR scientists. I am sure there is some truth in this, but it is not, in my view, the primary reason for the new policy. Bush really is not "anti science" as so many of his political opponents accuse. Indeed, his original "compromise" in 2001 was designed to permit research without violating what Bush considered to be important ethical concerns. And so this initiative must be seen as supporting science--since, thanks to Bush, so many new avenues of pursuing regenerative medicine are being discovered.

From the Times story, here is the gist of the new policy:

First, Mr. Bush will an announce that the registry of embryonic stem cell lines eligible for research with federal tax dollars will be reconfigured as the "human pluripotent stem cell registry," a change intended to allow other types of stem cells to become eligible for federal financing if they have the same properties as embryonic stem cells.

Mr. Bush will also order Michael O. Leavitt, secretary of health and human services, to "support alternative techniques," the officials said. He will instruct Mr. Leavitt to come up with a plan describing how scientists and researchers who want to get new stem cell lines approved for the registry might do so.

I don't understand opposition to this research and its funding. The controversy over ESCR is an argument over ethics. But I don't know of many people who find these areas of research--at least at their current state of investigation--ethically contentious. (Some are opposed to ANT, but it is currently in animal studies to which no one objects.) With few ethical objections, there seems every reason to go forward with this research with appropriate levels of federal funding. Moreover, many of the scientists and bioethicists who point out supposed ethical problems with these approaches, support destructive ESCR and believe it to be perfectly ethical. Thus, their ethical analyses seem aimed at convincing opponents of ESCR to also resist these initiatives in the hope that by tearing down the alternatives, it will somehow boost funding for conventional ESCR.

ESCR and its funding will be a big issue in the 2008 campaign. If any Democrat or if Republicans Rudy Giuliani or John McCain is elected, Bush's policy will fall. If Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, or Sam Brownback is elected, his policy will most likely continue. And isn't this where the great issue really belongs--as the subject of a great democratic debate among people of good will who differ in their opinions on the ethical propriety of ESCR, but who are all committed to scientific advancement as mediated by proper ethical guidelines? In the end, the people will decide.