Related articles and links |  1 of 3

Being pro-life used to mean, at a minimum, that you believe life begins at conception and that this life is worthy of protection at all stages of development. Sen. Bill Frist would like to "modify" that just a bit.

First, a little background. On August 9, 2001, you'll recall, President Bush announced a compromise. He would allow federal funding of embryonic stem-cell (ESC) research. But he restricted this government support to the 78 or so ESC lines that had already been created as of that date, "where the life and death decision has already been made." Thus, Bush said that the government should not encourage, nor should taxpayers pay for, research that involves the destruction of human life. At that time, Frist, who is a heart- and lung-transplant physician, announced he would support the policy.

Scientists value stem cells because of their purported ability to grow into other kinds of tissue and inaugurate a new era of regenerative medicine. "In all forms of stem-cell research," Dr. Frist said Friday, "I see today … great promise to heal. Whether it's diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, or spinal cord injuries, stem cells offer hope for treatment that other lines of research cannot offer."

Currently, there are two kinds of stem cells. The first is so-called adult stem cells, derived from umbilical cord blood and other areas of the human body. So far adult stem cells have provided treatments for at least 65 conditions in humans.

The second kind comes from human embryos. Scientists value these ESCs because they are pluripotent, having the ability to become any kind of human tissue. ESCs also have the ability to reproduce themselves indefinitely. So far, however, after 24 years of research using both mouse and human embryonic stem cells, no ESC-based treatments for humans have yet emerged. Taken out of their natural environment, embryonic stem cells are hard to control and have shown a propensity to grow into tumors and other unwanted tissues.

Another problem: Extracting ESCs currently involves killing human embryos. Thus, for this research to go forward, nascent human life must be sacrificed. It is worth noting that most of the anticipated cures from ESC research are highly speculative, while the scientific literature about the benefits of actual adult-cell treatments for heart patients and many others is growing steadily.

To many people who view life as more than simply a source of raw materials for scientific experimentation, that is an unacceptable trade-off. The Republican policy has been to enthusiastically support adult stem-cell research, which does not involve killing human embryos, but to oppose embryonic stem-cell research.

Unfortunately, thanks in no small measure to scientists who don't like government restraints on science and to a compliant media, few Americans (who may have relatives struggling with Alzheimer's or other dread conditions) are aware of the differences between adult and embryonic stem cell research. Most want to see all of it fully funded. America, they reason, has long been the world leader in science and should remain so.

The Bush restrictions started to take on water in May when the House of Representatives passed a bill, H.R. 810, to remove the funding restrictions and allow researchers to extract stem cells from among the estimated 400,000 "excess" human embryos in cold storage at fertility clinics nationwide. After all, the reasoning went, if these embryos created through IVF were destined to be thrown out anyway, why "waste" them? Nevertheless, Bush promised to veto any such bill that reached his desk, and pro-life leaders assumed Frist would stand with him.

next page... |  1 of 3

August (Web-only) 2005, Vol. 49