|
 ep.
Chris Smith (R., N.J.) will soon introduce the Responsible Stem
Cell Research Act of 2001. NRO's Kathryn Lopez discussed the bill
with David Prentice, a professor of life sciences at Indiana State
University and an adjunct professor of medical & molecular genetics
at the Indiana University School of Medicine. Dr. Prentice also
serves as an ad hoc science adviser to Kansas Republican Sen. Sam
Brownback. For an earlier conversation on the stem-cell debate,
see "The
Truth About Stem Cells."
Kathryn
Jean Lopez:
What is the Responsible Stem Cell Research Act of 2001?
David Prentice:
The bill authorizes $30 million specifically targeted at supporting
adult stem-cell research, which has already shown itself to be extremely
promising for treating numerous degenerative diseases such as heart
disease, stroke, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. Adult stem
cells have been shown in animal models to repair heart damage, provide
therapeutic benefit for stroke, and reverse diabetes. And adult
stem cells have already been used successfully in human patients
to relieve lupus, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis, to name a few.
We simply need more money for research into this ethical and promising
avenue. The bill also sets up a stem-cell bank for collection of
umbilical cord blood and placenta, two very rich sources of adult
stem cells.
Lopez:
Is the NIH equipped to run a stem-cell bank? We have seen how they
have bungled other things.
Prentice:
There have been questions in the past about NIH's ability to provide
effective oversight of contentious research. But this is not a contentious
area, and they surely have the physical facilities and personnel
capable of handling this project.
Lopez:
The proposed NIH bank would collect umbilical-cord blood and placenta
blood. Are we confident that stem cells from these sources are the
most efficient?
Prentice:
We know both sources are rich in stem cells, and there is evidence
these cells have the ability to transform into many other tissue
types. These are two sources that, if not banked by the family or
[made available] for general use, will be lost, sort of like a non-renewable
resource. Other equally promising sources such as bone marrow can
be drawn at any time from a patient or donor, so there's not the
urgency for banking these cells.
Lopez:
Do you have any feel for how much support the bill will get?
Prentice:
I haven't heard of any counts on who supports it at this early stage,
but this should be a bill that everyone can support! The
research is not ethically contentious, it harms no human beings,
it shows wonderful promise for treatment of serious diseases that
affect millions of Americans, and cord-blood stem cells have already
been used successfully in clinical trials. The bill is solidly for
patients and for medical research for disease treatments.
It puts desperately needed money toward a successful line of research.
I can't think of a sensible reason not to support it.
Lopez:
There is so much emotion and misinformation framing the debate over
stem-cell research, and such things as cloning. Is it possible,
on a national or even international level, have rational, accurate
conversations about facts and limits? Can Congress? Can Tommy Thompson
do so with the White House?
Prentice:
It should be possible, though I know it's hard to put aside the
emotion on both sides of the debate. The perception seems to be
that the reward goes to those who make the most noise or the grandest
claims. But we need to pause, put aside emotion and promises, and
take a hard look at the facts. Science is not the final arbiter;
science can only inform our choices regarding policy and ethics.
In the end, the question we must ask is: What type of society do
we want to be, and how do we view humanity?
Lopez:
Does the press mislead the public on these issues (for example,
by not reporting successes with adult stem cells and failures with
fetal and embryonic cells)?
Prentice:
The general perception has been that the "hype" goes to
embryonic stem-cell research, even though there's precious little
substance to go along with the promises being made. And [there's
the impression] that adult stem-cell successes get much less coverage,
and the negatives of embryonic little or no coverage. Interestingly,
beyond impression, there was a study done recently by the Statistical
Assessment Service on how balanced the reporting was regarding
embryonic vs. adult stem cells. The study found that the impressions
of the unequal coverage were well founded. There is obviously still
a need to dispel the misleading statements and restore balance and
truth to the reporting.
Lopez:
Last month, Christopher Reeve and seven scientists sued the Bush
administration for doing "irreparable harm" for halting
federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research for the time being,
a policy that is currently under review. They accuse the administration
of "preventing or delaying the advent of a cure for paralysis,
Parkinson's disease, diabetes and other debilitating conditions."
Is that true? Or is there stem-cell research still going on in the
U.S.?
Prentice:
Delaying the funding of two or three projects (the number submitted)
will not make or break any cure, especially in such an "embryonic"
area of research, one which is frankly much farther away from such
cures than adult stem-cell research. And embryonic stem-cell research
will continue as it has been using private funds, likely by those
same investigators, and likely with more funding than adult stem-cell
research.
Lopez:
Does this all belong in the private sector, with some important
legal limits?
Prentice:
Ideally we wouldn't need embryonic stem-cell research in any
sector. It certainly doesn't need the sanction nor the dollars of
the federal government. In light of the continuing successes with
adult stem cells, even some scientists who are not opposed to human
embryonic stem-cell research have made comments that adult stem
cells can function as well or better than embryonic stem cells,
and that it makes it hard to argue that we should use embryonic
cells. Further advances in adult stem-cell research could make the
whole question of embryonic stem cells moot.
Lopez:
Do you believe that it is possible, politically, to set reasonable
limits on embryonic stem-cell research in the U.S.? And, down the
road, even, on cloning?
Prentice:
Realistically, no, not in terms of drawing some arbitrary half-way
line and saying "you can only go this far but no farther."
Martin Teitel, president of the ["pro-choice"]
Council for Responsible Genetics, notes "No bright line
exists in ethics for deciding what is helping a person and what
is turning a human being into an experiment, or a product."
I note that the Council for Responsible Genetics has just issued
a call for a ban on embryo manipulation, rejecting genetic manipulation,
research on embryos, cloning, and embryos as items of commerce.
This last point is key — their Genetic Bill of Rights notes that
the "... commercialization of life is veiled behind promises
to cure disease...". Sound familiar?
Put another
way, how do you tell the difference between a human embryo produced
by in vitro fertilization or a cloned embryo? Or between an embryo
intended for implantation and a live birth and an embryo intended
for research and destruction? You can't. An embryo is an embryo,
and we can't see (or regulate) intent.
Erwin Chargaff,
the renowned biochemist whose landmark discoveries about DNA laid
the foundation for Watson, Crick, and many others, expresses it
this way: "Research always runs the risk of getting out of
control." He notes that, "There are some things you just
don't do," and calls the current climate toward making human
life (such as human embryos) a commodity "a kind of capitalist
cannibalism." A total ban, such as the Brownback-Weldon Human-Cloning
Prohibition Act, seems to be the only answer.
|
