Stem cell opinion round-up
Posted by Jesse Reynolds on March 11th, 2009
Here is a sampling of opinion and commentary on the change in federal human embryonic stem cell research policy from President Obama:
New York Times editorial:
President Obama was appropriately cautious, warning that
the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown and should not
be overstated. Some of the benefits, he said, might not appear in our
lifetime or even our children’s lifetime....
Other important embryonic research is still being hobbled by the
so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment. The amendment, which is regularly
attached to appropriations bills for the Department of Health and Human
Services, prohibits the use of federal funds to support scientific work
that involves the destruction of human embryos (as happens when stem
cells are extracted) or the creation of embryos for research purposes.
Until that changes, scientists who want to create embryos — and extract
stem cells — matched to patients with specific diseases will have to
rely on private or state support.
Washington Post editorial:
"We will develop strict guidelines, which we will
rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse,"
the president said yesterday at the White House. But he offered little
indication of where he would draw those lines....Art Caplan, bioethicist:
The White House said that Mr. Obama doesn't want to prejudge the NIH
guidelines but that this will not be the last we'll hear from Mr. Obama
on this subject. We hope not. Some of these ethical questions need to
be dealt with in the political arena, and not just by scientists.
reversal of former President George W. Bush's ban on such funding is
good news for the science needed to find treatments for currently
incurable conditions and for the ethics at stake in the issue....
utter ethical incoherence of the policy that Obama is now happily
putting to rest was reflected by Bush never doing anything to close
American infertility clinics. Studies I conducted and that others have
done show that human embryos are routinely destroyed at many IVF
clinics for a variety of reasons as an unavoidable part of the effort
to help the infertile to have children.
Not only do some
clinics destroy embryos, others accumulate them — in huge numbers. When
a doctor is not an immoral lunatic like the one who treated the recent
mother of octuplets, Nadya Sulemin, he or she puts aside some embryos
so as to avoid the tragedy of mega-multiple births.
Daniel Callahan, bioethicist, cofounder of the Hastings Center:
[H]owever much we may disagree on the morality of using stem cells for research or clinical purposes, everyone would do well to recognize that there is a fundamental difference between ethics and science. That difference has been systematically obscured by the widespread argument of research proponents that opposition to the research is opposition to science.Will Saletan, columnist, Slate:
The best way to understand this peril is to look at an issue that has become the mirror image of the stem-cell fight. That issue is torture....Yuval Levin, fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center:
We [anti-torture liberals] believe, as Obama does, that it's possible to save lives without crossing a moral line that might corrupt us. We reject the Bush administration's insistence on using all available methods rather than waiting for scrupulous alternatives....
The same Bush-Rove tactics are being used today in the stem-cell fight. But they're not coming from the right. They're coming from the left. Proponents of embryo research are insisting that because we're in a life-and-death struggle—in this case, a scientific struggle—anyone who impedes that struggle by renouncing effective tools is irrational and irresponsible. The war on disease is like the war on terror: Either you're with science, or you're against it.
But science policy is not just a matter of science. Like all policy, it calls for a balancing of priorities and concerns, and it requires a judgment of needs and values that in a democracy we trust to our elected officials. In science policy, science informs, but politics governs, and rightly so.
There are, of course, different ways for politics to exert authority over science. To distort or hide unwelcome facts is surely illegitimate. But to weigh facts against societal priorities -- economic, political and ethical -- in making decisions is the very definition of policymakers' duty. And to govern the practice of scientific techniques that threaten to violate important moral boundaries is not only legitimate but in some cases essential. ...
Science policy questions do often require a grasp of complex details, which scientists can help to clarify. But at their core they are questions of priorities and worldviews, just like other difficult policy judgments.
Modern science offers tremendously powerful means of knowing and doing. It is the role of elected policymakers to consider the knowledge that science offers and the power it gives us, and to balance these with other priorities -- be they economic as in the case of environmental policy, strategic as in the case of nonproliferation or moral as in the case of embryonic stem cells. In all these areas, politics ought to govern, with science merely its handmaiden. Science is a glorious thing, but it is no substitute for wisdom, prudence or democracy.
Nicholas Wade, New York Times journalist:
Members of Congress and advocates for fighting diseases have long spoken of human embryonic stem cell research as if it were a sure avenue to quick cures for intractable afflictions. Scientists have not publicly objected to such high-flown hopes, which have helped fuel new sources of grant money like the $3 billion initiative in California for stem cell research.
In private, however, many researchers have projected much more modest goals for embryonic stem cells. Their chief interest is to derive embryonic stem cell lines from patients with specific diseases, and by tracking the cells in the test tube to develop basic knowledge about how the disease develops.
Andrew Pollack, New York Times journalist:
But Mr. Obama’s decision, announced Monday, has removed the original
raison d’être for the California program and others like it. And with
most states facing severe budget pressures, it may prove difficult to
justify spending the money.
Bernadine Healy, former director, National Institutes of Health:
With the many advances in stem cell research of the past eight years because of both private and public dollars, this is a good time to critically analyze the promise of embryonic stem cells, particularly as replacement cells to cure dread illnesses like diabetes, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. That evaluation must be done without bias and be based on the best science available. But science itself must remain within the bounds of a society that trusts and supports it. In that sense, its research has always been constrained by an ethical, legal, and social framework that reflects far more than the needs and perspectives of scientists.
Obama on stem cell policy change
Posted by Jesse Reynolds on March 10th, 2009
Yesterday's removal of restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research by President Obama was both big and welcome news, and not just because the restrictions were unpopular and unduly restrictive. Obama also called for "strict" federal oversight of stem cell research:
We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. The President also unequivocally condemned human reproductive cloning, both for safety and social reasons:
And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.
Furthermore, the President's rhetoric was cautious, in sharp contrast to the boosters of human embryonic stem cell research who imply that cures are just around the corner:
[S]cientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions.... (emphasis mine)But if we pursue this research, maybe one day -- maybe not in our lifetime, or even in our children's lifetime -- but maybe one day, others [will be cured].
Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No President can promise that.
And he emphasized the need to balance the potential benefits and costs:
I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted.
However, the devilish details remain to be determined. The President’s executive order does not say which stem cell research will be eligible for federal funding. Instead, it merely revokes Bush's policies and calls on the National Institutes of Health to develop guidelines "consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations" within 120 days.
In contrast, Congressional bills to overturn Bush's restrictions were clearly limited to lines derived from embryos not needed by fertility clinics and which had proper informed consent. Considering Obama's language both during and after his presidential campaign, we hope the NIH will stake out a similar position.
Antinori Clones a Claim
Posted by Pete Shanks on March 4th, 2009
The controversial Italian fertility specialist Severino Antinori just claimed to have cloned three humans nine years ago.
So, born in early 2000? That's strange. Let's go to the archive:
- In January 2001, he was predicting that he would make a clone "within the next year or so."
- In April 2002, he asserted that one woman was pregnant, and later that three were, though his former partner said Antinori had "no clones, no laboratory and no doctors to help him."
- In June 2002, he said there had been no birth but there were five pregnancies.
- In December 2002, he said that the first clone would be born in Belgrade in January 2003.
- In July 2003, he said he had a "photograph of the five-month-old cloned foetus" which would be published "shortly in a medical journal."
That's when many of us stopped following his publicity campaigns. This latest "bombshell" was translated and distributed by AFP, so it has been fairly widely reprinted, but without much comment so far. On the bright side, Antinori has given us a new euphemism for cloning (aka nuclear transfer, SCNT etc.): "genetic reprogramming" or, in the original Italian, "ricodificazione genetica."
Previously on Biopolitical Times:
Bioethicist and industry spokesman on the baby business
Posted by Jesse Reynolds on March 3rd, 2009
Following on stories from the Associated Press on the absence of regulation in the fertility industry and from the Wall Street Journal on genetic selection for skin, hair, and eye color, a news article today raises further questions about America's "wild west" field of assisted reproduction. My colleague Marcy Darnovsky was cited in Suzanne Bohan's piece, which was published both in a group of thirty Northern California newspapers and as a shorter version delivered by the UPI wire.
Two other cited individuals are worth noting, as well. The prominent bioethicist Art Caplan drew the connection from the assisted reproduction industry to both eugenics and the profit motive:
But the nature of the business calls for tighter oversight, said Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania and a regular MSNBC commentator....
Caplan has long favored an oversight system for fertility clinics modeled on those governing blood- and organ donation services. Caplan helped establish the latter, the United Network for Organ Sharing, in the 1980s. It consists of an advisory board, and works on contract with a federal health agency. The United States is also one of only a handful of developed countries without laws regulating specific treatment protocols in fertility clinics, such as the number of embryo transfers or screening embryos for sex selection.
And the high rate of multiple births isn't the most vexing concern for Caplan. What alarms him is the prospect of fertility clinics offering services to endow offspring with extra intelligence, athletic ability, or physical attributes. A procedure called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, already is used to screen for sex selection at many clinics in the United States, as well as for genetic abnormalities.
''PGD is the single most controversial subject to ever face this field because you get right back to the eugenics issue,'' he said, referring to a movement that arose in the early 20th century that called for the promotion of certain traits among humans, and the reduction of others....
''The industry sees this not just as inevitable, but incredibly lucrative,'' Caplan said.
He took a similar line on Fox News this morning:
Sean Tipton, the spokesperson for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, was in a more awkward position. The ASRM issues guidelines, whose flexibility it defends as necessary for doctors to adapt to particular cases. However, the guidelines appear to be violated by 80% of fertility clinics.
Regarding whether it's likely that four out of five cases could merit exceeding the guidelines due to unusual challenges in conceiving, he said the society couldn't second-guess doctors' decisions.And when asked about the potential for PGD to select for nonmedical characteristics - a practice contrary to his organization's guidelines - Tipton only deferred to the mantra of parental choice:
''We don't like to assume,'' Tipton said.
Tipton, with the reproductive society, said it wouldn't comment on a technology not yet in use, other than to say, ''We are generally in favor of physicians providing good, understandable information, so patients can make the best decision for their families.''