I was watching the BBC world news last week and the story came up of George Bush vetoing the stem-cell research bill that the Senate had recently passed. This was such a befuddling development that the anchor had to bring in one of the BBCs "expert" observers of American politics to puzzle out what it all meant. They eventually decided that it was Bush's attempt to shore up his religious whacko Republican base prior to the midterm elections in November. It couldn't mean anything else, considering that it went against the wishes of prominent Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Nancy Reagan.
Let me float an alternate theory: He vetoed the bill because he thought it was the right thing to do. This would no doubt be a shocking concept to journalists, who find ulterior motives in everyone's actions but their own, but let's take it at face value.
The President obviously felt strongly about it enough that he cast his first -- and only, to date, veto to kill it. It's reasonable to assume that his view is informed by his Christian beliefs. But were there any other reasons?
Leaving aside the morality of the issue, there are more practical considerations, such as the fact that embryonic stem-cell (ESC) research has been, for all its grandiose claims and lavish, uncritical media coverage, a bust. Michael Fumento, writing in National Review, points out that there is much happening in non-destructive adult stem-cell (ASC) research, versus very little in ESCs.
ESCs certainly in theory are promising -- the raw plastic from which humans and all their components are molded. The problem is that we don't understand very well the process by which ESCs are inspired to form heart muscle or nerve tissue or what-have-you. Charles Krauthammer details one early attempt at using ESCs:
We have already had one such experience, a human stem cell experiment in China. Embryonic stem cells were injected into a suffering Parkinson's patient. The results were horrific. Because we don't yet know how to control stem cells, they grew wildly and developed into one of the most primitive and terrifying cancers, a "teratoma." When finally autopsied�the cure killed the poor soul�they found at the brain site of the injection a tumor full of hair, bone and skin.
Much was made last month of an experiment in which ESCs from mouse embryos were partially successful in repairing spinal damage in rats. This is, I suppose, good news for rats, but much, much more testing on higher-order animals (pigs next, probably dogs later and then monkeys) is required before we learn if there are implications for humans. That's one of the few success stories for ESCs.
This contrasts with over 1100 clinical trials (on humans) and 70-90 conditions that are more or less amenable to treatment with ASCs and stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood, etc. ASCs are far more controllable and predictable in behavior.
Note that the ban on funding ESC research (apart from the twenty-odd existing stem-cell lines approved by the government) only involves paying out federal dollars for it. President Bush has no authority over individual States funding it (indeed, Gov. Schwarzenegger recently approved $150 million for ESC research in California) or over private research projects.
One argument I've heard is that unless the US government funds basic research for ESC, the pharmaceutical and bio-tech industry will steer clear of it. Let's look at the numbers:
From fiscal years 2002 to 2005, the government funded about $850 million in stem-cell research. More than $760 million went to adult stem cells; about $93 million was spent on embryonic stem cells, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Let's assume that the overall budget remained the same, with the priority switched to funding ESC research. $760 million (over a 3-year period) is a lot of money; it's also easily within the envelope spent by Big Pharma for R&D, clinical trials and to steer a single line of drugs through the regulatory process. (And of course every penny of it will be recouped from future consumers.)
Are we to assume that, say, Merck or Pfizer wouldn't outlay that amount of money to steal a march on their competitors? Especially with the (alleged) potential of ESC therapy. Cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, paralysis? How profitable would those be? Or are their scientists far more pessimistic about the issue than opportunistic politicians (remember John Edwards?) and their science-illiterate cheerleaders in the press?
I haven't had the time to do an exhaustive roundup of ESC protocols in other countries, but here are some of Canada's:
Research can only use embryos created by in vitro fertilization that are no longer wanted for reproductive purposes. This means the creation of human embryos solely for research purposes is prohibited. Also, cloning human embryos is not allowed.
The use of stem cells in reproduction is not allowed.
Combining non-human stem cells with a human embryo or fetus is not allowed.
Embryos used in research must not exceed 14 days old (two weeks post-fertilization).
There must be free and informed consent from the donors of the stem cells or other reproductive material. This consent must be renewed when the time of the actual research comes so donors have a clear opportunity to change their minds.
No commercial transactions or financial incentives are allowed when it comes to the donation or creation of reproductive material.
Research on stem cell lines created outside of Canada and imported for research purposes will only be permitted if the stem cells were created in accordance with CIHR's guidelines.
So Canada is somewhat more permissive in its regulations, but still prohibits the deliberate creation of embryos for research. We do, however, allow the use of embryos that would be otherwise discarded or frozen indeterminately. This seems to make sense, but it still carries a nasty whiff of utilitarianism with it. One imagines that Nazi doctors could have similarly rationalized their medical experiments on concentration-camp inmates: "They will soon all be dead, and they are only Jews anyway. (Ears are perking up at the BBC.) It will save the lives of German sailors and airmen."
Speaking of the Germans, what's up with this?
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Germany pressed its EU partners to ban European funding for embryonic stem-cell research, a day after President George W. Bush vetoed a bill that would have expanded such work in the United States.
"The European Union science programme should not be used to give financial incentives to kill embryos," German Research Minister Annette Schavan wrote in a letter seen by Reuters on Thursday before a meeting on EU science funding on Monday.
Now it could be that the hapless Germans are only tapdancing to the tune of Chimpy McHallibushton.
Or it could be that a good many people have thought long and hard about the issue and have concluded that there are ethical bright lines that we cross at our peril.