Opinion: Keep stem-cell research

While controversial, stem-cell research has bipartisan support and could be the key to the cure for variousdiseases ailing those who now have little hope.

President Bush should not revoke federal funding for stem-cell research. The research, which is performed on cells from frozen embryos, has bipartisan support on Capitol Hill as well as from some pro-life political heavyweights. The president reportedly is leaning against it, indicated by his recent crackdown on federal funding for the creation of cloned embryos for research. But Bush should listen to his health and science advisers and back the revolutionary science that has potential to save thousands of lives.

Stem cells are the building blocks of human development, and researchers believe they hold the key to cures for a spectrum of diseases, including Parkinson's, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and spinal-cord injuries. The cells can transform themselves into nearly all the different tissues that make up a human body, which means they also can serve as replacement cells for defective or missing cells, potentially leading to new treatments for diseases.

The controversy surrounds the source of those cells -- unused frozen embryos from fertility clinics. Some fertilized eggs are implanted in the woman by in-vitro fertilization, and then the others are kept frozen or discarded. Fertility clinics in the United States have nearly 100,000 frozen eggs, most of which will never be used. While National Right to Life Committee leaders have suggested that those thousands of fertilized eggs should be adopted, it makes more sense to use them for research that could save and improve lives.

Because of the controversy over the research, the National Institutes of Health under the Clinton administration issued strict guidelines for stem-cell research. They specifically state that cells must be derived from frozen embryos that were created for the purposes of fertility treatment and were obtained with the donating couple's consent. Stem cells used for research purposes are not harvested from aborted fetuses.

Pro-life groups such as the NRLC have adamantly campaigned against the research, claiming that destroying an embryo for research purposes is murder, just like abortion. But the fact is, a fertilized egg is not a fetus. There is nothing human about it except its potential, made greater by its research possiblities. Under the research rules that Bush has suspended while he looks for a compromise, scientists would continue to use only those embryos that are being thrown away. This is research that uses a valuable resource that otherwise would end up discarded.

The administration, is hoping that research on adult stem-cell tissue may prove to be at least as beneficial as that done on cells from embryos. In a carefully worded letter to a pro-life group, Bush hedged the issue, saying he did not approve of research performed on "living human embryos" but supported research done on adult tissue. But the latest results aren't conclusive that adult tissue even contains stem cells usable for new research. We know embryos do.

It's an issue that has sharply divided the public and Bush's advisers. Tommy Thompson, Bush's pro-life secretary of health and human services, has adamantly backed the research. He faces the most debate from Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser who fears that the president's endorsement of the research would cost him support among conservatives for 2004.

But Bush should heed the advice of his party, not just his aides. The research has bipartisan backing, with conservatives such as former Florida Sen. Connie Mack and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah -- both pro-life advocates -- lending their support. In a Wall Street Journal article this week, Mack, a cancer survivor who lost a brother to the disease, expressed his support for the research and urged the president to back it. "I've lived the terrible ordeal of watching a loved one confront a disease without a cure," he wrote. "Stem-cell research may be controversial, but after a careful review I believe it is an area of scientific research that must be explored." Bush shouldn't stand in the way of that exploration.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page