“This is not some wedge issue; this is the soul of America,’’ said Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, who sponsored the bill Mr. Bush vetoed. “And this is a colossal mistake on the part of the president.’’
It was not a mistake because it was a wedge issue. This bill did more to create talking points for future elections than it would have done to promote embryonic stem cell research.
This is why you heard that researchers are leaving the country. (A few have but lack of federal funding isn't the only reason. It also has to do with U.S. patents on cell lines which aren't patented in other countries.) This is why you heard that embryonic stem cells offer the best hope for a cure for diseases. (Studies are confirming a finding by the University of Louisville that adult stem cells can be made to mimic embryonic stem cells.)
The arguments against the bill were based on moral grounds. I understand the objections that some people have but I don't know if a five-day-old cluster of cells that was created in a lab and has no chance of being implanted in a woman's womb should be considered the same as an implanted embryo (naturally or artificially). I tend to think not since it could not mature enough to survive without implantation but I also believe that technology could advance enough in the future where it would be possible for an embryo to mature into a full term baby solely through artificial support. If and when this occurs, would we want legislation setting a precedent that allows life created in a lab to be used for federally funded experimentation? (The bill that was passed, S. 3504, prohibits farming of fetuses but only covers human pregnancies and non-human animals used as a surrogate.) When would the cutoff period be then? Some might say it should never be allowed, others might say before the first heartbeat (about five weeks after fertilization), and others might feel that any time up until term would be okay as long as the perceived need was great enough.
The current restrictions prohibit a lab that receives federal funding from using newer colonies of stem cells. The only ones available for this are from embryos destroyed before Aug. 9, 2001. This doesn't prevent labs from doing the research with private or state funding. There is no ban on the research. It's being done at universities (Harvard has developed 17 new stem cell lines) and pharmaceutical companies. With all of the complaints about drug companies profits, it's a bit ironic to think that there are some who would be willing to subsidize their research with taxpayer dollars.
The problem is that a lab that receives federal funding and wants to do embryonic stem cell research on non-approved lines must have a totally separate section for this. Nothing shall be shared, directly or indirectly, including location, equipment, or maintenance.
If our legislators had wanted to create an effective bill, it would have had nothing to do with what lines are available, it would have simplified the accounting of indirect costs for facilities and administration. I believe this would have had a greater chance of becoming law but laws about accounting don't give them as much opportunity for high profile sound bites. What politician wants to tell how he/she fought for or against making sure that even the brooms used to sweep up in the labs have their costs pro-rated according to their use in federally funded labs and research labs using other funding when claiming to be "for science" or "for life" is a much surer bet to make the evening news?
Posted by marybeth at July 20, 2006 10:20 AM News , Politics , Science