|
 uch
ado has been made in the media of Sen. Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) coming
out for federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research (ESCR),
"with limits," as the New York Times's headline put it. While
most of the media emphasis has been on the funding aspect of the
story — no surprise since that angle undermines the opposition
to ESCR — precious little media focus has been placed on the
actual "limits" Frist proposed. That may be a huge mistake in interpreting
the real meaning of this latest development in the great stem-cell
debate.
There is no question that Frist's decision — he is a close
ally of President Bush and the Senate's only physician — adds
to the immense pressure-squeeze on President Bush to approve federal
funding of ESCR, an act that would put the American people on record
as approving the use of human life as a mere natural resource to
be destroyed and harvested. Indeed, one is sorely tempted to ask,
with friends like Frist (and Orin Hatch, and John McCain, and Connie
Mack, and Gordon Smith, etc. etc, ad nauseam), who needs enemies?
But there may be more to this story than appears on its face.
The actual policy limitations Frist advocates — "Frist Principles
on Human Stem Cell Research" — have not been extensively reported.
I suspect the reason for this is that if the Bush administration
takes them seriously, the federal government will not, in
the end, fund ESCR.
Before we review the Frist Principles, let's review the current
state of great stem-cell debate. Polls show that the American people
do not approve using public money to destroy human embryos in medical
research, an act that is currently outlawed by a federal law known
as the Dickey Amendment. A recent CNN/USA Today poll revealed
that a whopping 57 percent of the American people do not know enough
about the issue of ESCR to express an opinion. Other polls show
that the American people appear to support ESCR in the context of
using embryos, but only on the condition that they would have been
discarded anyway as being in excess of need from IVF fertilization
procedures.
This "IVF barrier" gambit — so far, the driving force in the
entire stem-cell debate — is effective because it appeals to
the deep pragmatism in the American character. If the embryos are
doomed anyway, the argument goes, then why not get some good out
of them? Indeed, it is this last point that supporters of ESCR funding
are adeptly using as a battering ram to smash past the people's
oft-expressed squeamishness about destroying human life in medical
research.
Opponents of funding ESCR have argued vehemently against this stark
utilitarianism, unfortunately with little effect. I will not repeat
those arguments here. We have also argued that the IVF-barrier argument
is actually a bait and switch tactic to desensitize the people to
the harvesting human life. Once that slide down the slippery slope
is accomplished, we believe, scientists will quickly shift to making
human embryos for the purpose of destruction and harvest in human
experimentation and will eventually push for federal funding of
human cloning.
Our fears on that score were validated last
week when the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine bragged
that they were already creating and destroying embryos in
privately funded ESCR. The Jones scientists claimed that this act
was "as ethical" as using embryos destined for being discarded.
They also suggested that freshly made embryos might be "superior"
to embryos thawed from the deep freeze. Not only that, the biotech
industry has been lobbying hard against pending legislation designed
to ban all human cloning because, industry lobbyists claim, cloning
will be a necessary part of embryonic-stem-cell medical therapy
in order to avoid transplanted embryonic tissue from stimulating
the body's immune system.
It is thus quite clear that once ESCR receives the imprimatur of
federal funding, the IVF barrier will simply not hold. Federal funding
would neither prohibit nor regulate the creation of embryos for
research or experiments so long as private money were used. Thus,
rather than inhibiting such research, as Sen. Hatch has claimed,
it would merely free up private money now used in IVF experiments
for more Jones Institute-type research and efforts to begin human
cloning.
With the above in mind, let's now review the Frist Principles. Frist
states, "Federal funding for stem cell research should be contingent
on the implementation of strict new safeguards and public accountability
governing this new, evolving research." (My emphasis.) He then lists
the following ten principles, which he calls "essential components"
of stem-cell policy:
1. "Ban Embryo Creation for Research: "This would outlaw acts, such
as those committed by the Jones Institute.
2. "Continue Funding Ban On Derivation:" This means the Dickey Amendment
banning federal funding of actual destruction would remain in place.
(President Bill Clinton — never one to permit the plain meaning
of words to impede him--sought to get around the Dickey amendment
by permitting federal funding of ESCR only after the embryo had
been destroyed and the stem cells harvested. That is the policy
President Bush suspended early in his administration, sparking the
great stem-cell debate.)
3. "Ban Human Cloning:" Frist would prohibit all human cloning to
"prevent the creation and exploitation of life for research purposes."
4. "Increase Adult Stem Cell Research Funding:" Here, here! This
should be done even before we reach the denouement of the great
stem cell debate.
5. "Provide Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research Only From Blastocysts
That Would Otherwise Be Discarded:" This is the IVF-barrier gambit.
6. "Require a Rigorous Informed Consent Process:" The regulations
would be patterned after organ donation protocols that require detailed
consent procedures.
7. "Limit Number of Stem-Cell Lines:" This would seek to ensure
that a very limited number of embryos would be destroyed for ESCR.
8. "Establish a Strong Public Research Oversight System:" Naïve,
at best. The federal government doesn't even adequately oversee
research using born human subjects.
9. "Require Ongoing, Independent Scientific and Ethical Review:"
The worth of such a step would depend on who does the reviewing.
10. "Strengthen and Harmonize Fetal Tissue Research Restrictions:"
This would strengthen existing rules about fetal tissue research
(experiments using the bodies of aborted fetuses) to equal those
that Frist seeks over ESCR.
The crucial question presented is this: Is the senator serious when
he states are these principles are "contingent" on his support and
"essential components" required to justify support for federally
funded ESCR? In other words, would the senator require the Frist
Principles to be enacted into federal law as a condition precedent
to federal funding of ESCR? Or, as many opponents fear, are the
Principles proposals merely to be advocated following a decision
to federally fund ESCR?
If Frist intends the former scenario, then the Frist Principles
are designed as a "put up or shut up" to supporters of ESCR that
would require them to lock the IVF barrier into federal law as proof
of their good faith. Thus, failing to ban human cloning, failing
to limit the number of stem cell lines, failing to retain the Dickey
Amendment, and failing to outlaw the creation of embryos for research
purposes — even with private money — would doom federal
funding of ESCR under the Frist Principles.
This is a political hook that President Bush could hang his Stetson
on. True, it would fall far short of the principled rejection of
federal funding of ESCR for which opponents deeply yearn from the
president. But any port in a hurricane. Sometimes a political approach
is required to implement important principles — just ask Abraham
Lincoln.
Should Bush adopt the Frist Principles as administration policy,
I do not believe we will ever see federal funding of ESCR. Sen.
Arlen Specter, the Senate's premier voice in favor of strip mining
human life, has previously made it abundantly clear that he wants
to destroy the Dickey Amendment (which would violate the Second
Frist Principle). Moreover, at the subcommittee hearing at which
Frist unveiled his proposal, Specter stated that he is not willing
to limit the number of cell lines that would be created by ESCR.
I also doubt that he would ever vote to outlaw all human cloning,
much less vote to prohibit private creation of embryos for use in
research.
If the rest of the ESCR crowd follows Specter's lead--and I have
little doubt that most will--it will doom the Frist Principles.
Once it is clear that his proposal will not be enacted, Frist should
come out and say that he tried to reach a "good faith" compromise
on federal funding, but failed. He should then announce that he
supports the existing ban on funding of ESCR because it is now obvious
that the IVF barrier was never intended to be a wall separating
us from Brave New World but rather, was designed to be a door opening
to it.
Such an act would demonstrate that when he lays out crucial public-policy
principles, he really means it. If, however, after Frist's Principles
are rejected or are stalled in the legislative process, he supports
federal funding of ESCR anyway — while voicing the vague hope
that his "principles" will be put into effect someday--then Frist
will have shown himself to be merely another cynical politician
looking for cover on a highly controversial issue.
Who is the real Sen. Bill Frist? We will soon find out.
|
