http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9533577
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/washington/19stem.html?ex=1310961600&en=274...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/stemcells.veto/index.html
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/16/1633
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=131964
Of all the damaging, unnecessary, and even un-American bills that have reached the president’s desk, Bush has only vetoed one – a 2006 embryonic stem cell research funding act. Now the Democrat-led Congress will try again in 2007, but no one expects a different outcome. The Senate may have enough votes to override a veto, but probably not the House. This sad debate is a perfect example why politics shouldn’t exploit and confound sound science, especially when billions of dollars, thousands of careers, and potentially millions of lives could be at stake. The fact that the Democrats successfully used stem cell research as a campaign tool in 2006 only strengthened the Republican resolve to oppose them, if only as a political pissing contest prior to 2008. When discourse over a pragmatic issue of national concern degenerates into a moral/religious/ideological impasse, we all suffer because of it. Intolerant conservatives are exaggerating the moral implications of stem cell research, and ignorant liberals are overstating the benefits while downplaying the many glaring technical and regulatory challenges. I think both sides need to get real to keep the discussion rational and practical.
THE PROBLEM WITH THE LEFT: SCIENCE
You might think that I totally blame the conservatives on this matter, but the liberals are messing things up too. By ridiculing the Jesus-freaks (and I am a practicing Christian who is obviously guilty of this too), it only makes them more defensive and sure of their righteous persecution. So they want to fight harder if they feel like the atheist liberals are attacking their sacred beliefs and threatening innocent fetuses. There are plenty of legit reasons to criticize the behavior of some hypocritical Christians, but we don’t need to attack the entire faith and institutions of religion. Arnold didn’t win over California Democrats by calling them “girlie men”, and had much better success extending the olive branch. So to try to wrestle the moral high ground from the pro-lifers, the liberals way OVER-PROMISED the benefits of stem cell research! In the 2004 presidential campaign, John Edwards literally told crowds that we would be able to cure Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s if we vote them in. And for scientists who are petrified that their funding will be cut, they also over-sold their research for their own survival, to wow enough people to keep them afloat. I know Gore and company have done the same thing with global warming, exaggerating the potential calamities in order to get people to wake up. But in the case of medical research, we dig a hole for ourselves if we promise what we can’t deliver. I know that many federal grants end up becoming “wasted money” because the scientists don’t provide much useful data towards achieving what the government expected from its investments. But they are making some progress, which is more than can be said of the billions of dollars wasted on idiotic defense initiatives like Star Wars.
So the reality is that embryonic stem cells won’t be able to directly help any patient for many years, if ever. But you have to start somewhere. The Manhattan Project started one day when generals and PhDs gathered around a blackboard to find a way to beat Hitler, and the “fruits of the labor” didn’t materialize until 1945 when we vaporized two Japanese cities. The Human Genome Project cost billions of dollars and thousands of man-hours, and not a single new drug or therapy has directly come of it… yet. But no one can deny that the knowledge is useful and could lead to future breakthroughs, even if it takes major social sacrifices. But we’ve learned things since then, and now DNA sequencing is many times cheaper and faster than that seminal study. At the risk of sounding like a heartless, godless scientist – you have to break some eggs to make an omelet. That is research, but of course there need to be ethical controls. Stem cell biologists are not as vile as the government doctors who sent soldiers into atomic bomb fallout in the Nevada desert to study radiation effects on troop performance, or the ones who withheld cheap and vital treatment from black patients in Tuskegee to monitor the progression of syphilis.
Adult stem cells are already used to save (or prolong) lives in bone marrow transplants, and many organ transplants are also approved. The donors can often live normal lives afterwards. No one has to die. Maybe some day, other adult stem cells will be able to provide other regenerative or replacement therapies (they’re working on skin cells a lot), and no fetuses will need to be sacrificed. But for now, embryonic stem cells are much more potent for such applications. Those fetuses in liquid nitrogen will never be implanted into a mother, birthed, and given a loving childhood. Does that give us the right to use them frivolously? Of course not, but if those fetuses knew that their mothers couldn’t care for them, and their essence would be used to try to make life better for suffering people all over the world, then maybe the fetus wouldn’t be a victim and the researcher a murderer. Was Jesus a suicidal sinner because he gave his life for humanity? No, because his death supposedly had a good purpose. I know that no one has the right to force someone to give up their life for a greater cause, but basically Bush has done that to the soldiers he sent to their grave in the Middle East.
The human body is not perfect as we all know, and our parts break down. Some diseases cause accelerated tissue degradation, or even make your body attack itself. So the theory goes that embryonic stem cells, which multiply and diversify into all the tissues of a complete human (if everything goes right in the womb), can be grown/modified in labs, implanted into patients, and programmed to reverse or repair tissue damage from disease. Like if your car’s alternator is giving out, you take it to the garage and get a new one installed. But of course the human body doesn’t work like a Chevy. Even in healthy people, miscarriages and birth defects are scarily common because it is really hard to construct a human body flawlessly (so call your mom tonight and tell her thanks). Cells don’t always listen to commands and do what they’re supposed to (i.e. cancer). With all the potential side effects from simple drugs like antibiotics or aspirin, can you imagine how hard it will be to screen patients for stem cell compatibility? And when you make an alternator in a factory, the machines make it the same every time, and quality control checks that it works before reaching the mechanic. When stem cells multiply in culture, there’s no guarantee that the new generation will be the same as the last. The whole point of stem cells is they become other types of cells with the appropriate cues. And we still don’t fully understand how cells respond to external or internal cues. If we don’t give them the proper sustenance and signals at all times, the cells will get crabby, misbehave, change into something else that can’t be used in research, or even die. Cells from an organism don’t like being outside that organism, and who knows what will happen if we artificially insert them into a foreign organism? So the same stem cells might do different things in different people on different days, through no fault of the researchers! What kind of wonder cure is that? Currently it doesn’t look good, but scientists are learning volumes each day and it doesn’t mean that it will never work – the Democrats just have to keep it real with the people so we can make the best choices concerning the research.
That’s why Bush’s previous stem cell plan is BS. In his first term, Bush grudgingly approved dozens of stem cell lines for federal funding because they were already available and the source fetuses were already destroyed. These so-called “presidential stem cell lines” (line = a self-renewing, dedicated type of stem cell isolated from a single embryo) are not an eternal supply. From whitehouse.gov: On August 9, 2001 President Bush told the nation “As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.”
This shows how little our leader understands the science. No cells except CANCER have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely. And even cancer cells won’t multiply without the proper nutrients, environment, and signals. Cells are temperamental little buggers, and embryonic stem cells are the most temperamental. Cell lines that began in 2001 are quite old by now (usually cells divide and become a new generation every few days, and some change into other types so they’re not stem cells anymore), so many are starting to degrade. The early stem cell biologists didn’t know very much, so they abused some cell lines and now they are starting to act their age. Some are already nonviable or lost completely. So that is like giving Bill Gates an old 486 computer and expecting him to fix all the bugs of Vista with it. Even for geniuses, you can’t give them shit materials and expect them to make a masterpiece out of it. The presidential cell lines have profoundly advanced the research, but they’re starting to outlive their usefulness and scientists need newer, better lines. But without federal funding, the prospect of isolating, characterizing, growing, and studying new lines is not great. California and some universities have their own funding, but it’s not enough. No such stem cell research restrictions exist in Europe and Asia, so those foreign scientists and companies are getting way ahead of us. America already has the priciest, most inefficient health care system. Just imagine how hard it will be when foreigners hold all the patents!
By now we should realize that stem cells will not automatically become a miracle cure that regrows your occipital lobe or knee cartilage, and the devil is in the details. You can’t just inject stem cells into an Alzheimer’s patient’s brain and expect them to clean up the amyloid plaques, become neurons, form synapses, and restore cognitive function. Heck, we don’t even totally understand how complex organs like the brain or pancreas really work in healthy or diseased individuals, so there’s no way we can predict what foreign cells will do in such complex systems. The FDA won’t let you put anything into anyone without knowing its mechanism of action and side effects. And patient variability is always a concern. With all the risk of pathogens or immune rejection, cell-based medicine is really challenging and hard to get approved. Most of cutting-edge biotechnology involves the manipulation of simpler nucleic acids and proteins. We discovered those molecules a half-century ago, and only now do we have the ability to make them cheaply (relatively), put them to good use, and know what they will do once inside the body. Gene therapy is still economically nonviable, but we have FDA-approved enzyme and antibody proteins to address a variety of health issues. But even a tiny little antibody molecule is so tremendously complex that we need to program special mammal cells to make them for us in elaborate, expensive manufacturing processes. That’s why Avastin costs HMOs $10,000 a month per cancer patient (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-07-10-cancer-costs_x.htm). And the engineered molecules like Gleevac that chemists synthesize to combat ailments have never naturally been in humans, so companies must show the FDA reams of data to prove that such compounds are safe, effective, and pure.
If drug makers have to go through so much just to approve a little molecule to become a drug, just imagine how hard it will be to get the FDA ok for stem cells (a cell may have millions of different molecules in it, behave in a less predictable manner, and is more likely to cause immune rejection or side effects). So how the heck do we engineer stem cells to maintain themselves until implantation, be robust to withstand purification/processing/transport/storage, then program them to change into something useful the body, reverse a disease, and not hurt the patient in a reliable, effective, economic manner? Well, much smarter people than us are working around the clock on it, because they believe in the science and want to help people in need. Even if the therapies are decades away, we have to start somewhere. Someone had to lay the first stone for the Great Pyramids. Therefore, we should provide scientists the resources to give it their best effort, because the potential benefits are tremendous.
THE PROBLEM WITH THE RIGHT: RELIGION
Now to the Religious Right: they claim that we must respect the sanctity of life, not encourage abortions/unethical research, and it’s wrong to sacrifice one innocent life to save another. Maybe so, but based on that premise, the War on Terror is immoral as well. We are torturing, ruining, and sacrificing innocent lives just to “safeguard” our lives. The global economy is also immoral, because we’re exploiting lives and the planet that our creator gave us, just for profit and consumption. But the last time I checked, not many Bible-thumpers and pro-lifers were protesting the Iraq War and consumerism that their lifestyles explicitly endorse. I guess fighting Darwinism and stem cell research are sexier “crusades” for religious people to pursue. First it was bombing abortion clinics, and now it’s rewriting our children’s biology textbooks and depriving expert, professional, and conscientious scientists from furthering human understanding of the complex mysteries of life.
If research challenges what is written in Genesis, then why not protest or attack the astronomers and quantum physicists who study the origins of the universe, and have data to suggest that the world is billions of years old and life can spontaneously emerge from non-living matter? Humans have always been ignorant, gullible creatures and fearful of what is not obvious or easily understood (racism, Da Vinci vs. the church, Mayans freaking out over solar eclipses, etc.). Are the protesters only against unethical research or exploration of the unknown in general? If so, then they might as well boycott all the immoral medicines, foods, and other biologics that they rely on every day, because godless scientists created them. Put your money where your mouth is, and don’t selectively practice your faith! Some believe that science and religion can and should coexist better in our society. Maybe atheists and born-agains could give it a chance.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9207913
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9180871
And let’s be honest, the “pro-life” conservative American Christians aren’t doing a good job convincing us that they really do give a shit about protecting life. Except for the rich people who can afford in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and donate their extra fetuses to science, most of the research stem cells come from aborted fetuses, and there are thousands of them sitting idly deep freeze all over the country. But what about the poor, desperate mothers who had to get abortions because they couldn’t afford to bring a child into the world? Those same Christian conservatives voted for leaders who cut funding for social programs, education, and health care to the poor - all of which could contribute to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. And what’s worse, those political bloodsuckers used some of that money to finance war. Which Americans are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan? The kids of CEOs and senators? No – the poorer, less educated, rural Americans who joined the armed forces partly out of patriotism, but also because they had few better options. If you love the troops and value their lives, why did you support leaders who don’t want to give them body armor and keep extending their tours of duty?
So those pro-lifers might support leaders who get on the stump and talk about the immorality of abortion and stem cell research, but conveniently look the other way when those same leaders trample over the poorest and least of our society. And some even broke the law to make the richest among us even richer. Didn’t Jesus say that the poor are blessed, what good we do for the least of our brothers we do for Jesus, and it’s easier for a camel to pass through a needle’s eye than a rich person to go to heaven? Thou shalt not kill a fetus, but thou shalt turn a blind eye to the suffering poor, and thou shalt kill every Muslim who dares oppose America? If you really want to protect life, then fine – outlaw abortion and federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. But then you better also tax the hell out of the rich and give it to the poor, bring our troops home and decommission our nukes (those who live by the sword will die by the sword), and conduct national policy with integrity, compassion, and generosity instead of arrogance, dishonesty, and greed, like the savior said! Or if they aren't ready to give up their wars and riches, then shut the F up about stem cells and let these smart, dedicated researchers try to do some good for their fellow man (what a novel concept for a Christian!).
CONCLUSION
It’s no secret that the Bush Administration has been one of the most anti-science governments in US history. They’re not only ignorant of science, but actually treat it with disdain in my opinion. It’s fairly clear that the president of the free world doesn’t really believe in climate change or natural selection. He is entitled to his opinions I suppose, but not if it endangers national interests. Thanks to Gore, Arnold, Kyoto, and other environmentalists, finally the outcry over greenhouse gases is large enough that even fairly conservative politicians are calling for reforms and immediate action. Because businesses can’t make money amidst Biblical drought/extinctions/floods/tempests, and how can their grandkids grow up to continue their legacies with a sick planet!?! They inundated the EPA with hack appointees who believe that silly environmental regulations just get in the way of business profit and productivity. As furious states started to sue the EPA, eventually the Supreme Court had to step in and proclaim that CO2 is a pollutant and could be regulated by the federal government. With their tail tucked between their legs, the Bushies have grudgingly acknowledged that global warming probably has a man-made element to it, but what is their solution? Give major tax subsidies to agri-businesses to substitute problematic corn ethanol for foreign petroleum, and don’t bother to promote conservation or cleaner industry!
http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RJGDQTN&CFID=120150...
They lost the battle over CO2, so now they want to make their last stand with stem cells. The Bush treatment of life science has been utterly criminal. In order to pay for his wars and tax cuts that favor the wealthy, Bush has severely cut the research budgets of critical public institutions like the National Institutes of Health, which funds university research all over the nation. And the tightening of immigration laws (to an unfair degree, as some might argue) has frustrated or prevented some of the brightest professionals and students from obtaining visas to work and study here, thereby compromising our intellectual capital. Spending for military and nuclear research have ballooned under Bush, and defense contractors like Boeing enjoy ginormous tax breaks, subsidies, and contracts for projects that don’t make America any safer (in the CNN link below, the high-tech Comanche helicopter wasted almost $7B of taxpayer money before it was cancelled in 2004 to divert funds for Iraq – just think how many new stem cell lines that could buy).
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/206/1
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/23/helicopter.cancel/index.html
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/130/117750?src=RSS_PUBLIC
Yet as the wealth of biotechnology knowledge is growing exponentially and opening new doors for exciting and crucial future exploration, the NIH has had its budget frozen by Washington and is hard pressed to sustain the high quality of research that the US is famous for. Even top researchers are literally scraping the bottom of the bucket and begging for new grants to sustain their labs. And worse, important institutions like the FDA, NIH, and CDC have been without key leaders for months or years, and in the meantime key reforms or projects have stalled. No institution can function optimally without a strong leader in place who espouses the values of his or her subordinates. The former FDA chief had to step down for conflict of interest allegations, and Bush’s chosen replacement Von Eschenbach had confirmation trouble in Congress because he refuses to make the Plan B abortion pill more readily available. Life science is just not a priority to these cronies, though I’m sure they’d change their tone if their spouse or child was diagnosed with a scary disease, like what happened to John and Elizabeth Edwards. God forbid such ailments befall our leaders, but I worry that such a shock is the only thing that could get them to wake up.
