Medical Groups Begin Campaign for Lethal Embryo Research
By Richard M. Doerflinger
Last month researchers and biotechnology companies kicked off their long-expected lobbying campaign to secure federal funding of destructive embryonic stem cell research. Yet even as this campaign became more visible and more insistent, further evidence has come forth showing that the research these groups are demanding is completely unnecessary for medical progress.
Human stem cells, relatively unspecialized cells that can renew themselves and become different kinds of cells needed by the body, have long been sought by researchers. Many medical groups have fixated on obtaining such cells from human embryos, which requires killing the embryos at one week of development. That stem cells of equal or greater promise can be obtained from many parts of the adult human body has been demonstrated over and over again, but ignored by those who have eyes only for destructive embryo research.
An initial effort to persuade Congress to fund destructive forms of stem cell research was sponsored by the American Society for Cell Biology on May 10. The society brought in embryo researcher Roger Pedersen of the University of California to brief congressional staff on the need to destroy human embryos for their stem cells. (To be sure, when asked whether he was talking about destroying embryos, Pedersen avoided the word. He said only that once the cells are obtained the embryo does not develop further as an embryo!)
Pedersen's presentation elicited probing questions from congressional staff in attendance. Some asked: If it is so clear that this research is likely to cure many ravaging diseases, why are private companies not beating down the doors of embryo researchers' labs to offer them contracts? Why is there such a need for federal funds, when for-profit companies whose survival depends on investing in promising research have untold millions to spare? Dr. Pedersen could only reply that progress will come "faster" if many quality researchers are involved.
Not mentioned by Pedersen was the December 2, 1998, testimony given by the Geron Corporation before a Senate appropriations subcommittee on this very point. Geron, the chief biotechnology firm now providing private funds for destructive embryonic stem cell research, said federal funds are needed because "industry will only explore that part of the frontier that may lead to products."
According to Geron, federal funding would chiefly be used for "basic research that will be otherwise underfunded by the private sector" - - in other words, precisely the research that no one now predicts will lead to a cure for any disease!
Staff also asked Dr. Pedersen whether it isn't possible to obtain "pluripotent" stem cells (cells capable of becoming many different kinds of cells) from other sources. He conceded that adult stem cells do "fit the definition" of being "pluripotent" - - a significant concession, since the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been denying this in an effort to focus on destructive embryo research [see NRL News, 5/11/99]. Still, he said, each adult stem cell is only capable in practice of becoming "one or two" kinds of cells.
But a mere four days later Pedersen was proved wrong. The May 14 issue of Science reported success in stimulating adult stem cells from bone marrow to produce new liver tissue. There are indications that the same method may produce pancreatic cells for treatment of diabetes.
Said Bryon Petersen, chief author of this University of Pittsburgh study, "This suggests that there is a stem cell in the adult bone marrow that is capable of becoming anything if you give it the right signal" (Associated Press, 5/13/99).
Embryo researcher Roger Pedersen had many opportunities to know his statement was wrong even before the new Pittsburgh study was released. For example, an article in the April 12 issue of The Scientist began as follows: "While prominent scientists plead with legislators to reconsider their conservative stance on funding human embryonic stem (ES) cell research, a six-year-old company in Baltimore is quietly making the matter moot. In a just-released tour-de-force research report, it is no longer quite so quiet."
The article proceeded to report that researchers at Osiris Therapeutics and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore had "coaxed human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) from adults' bone marrow to develop into cartilage, fat, and bone cells." Even before this, in January, still another team of researchers had succeeded in directing nerve stem cells in adult mice to produce blood cells.
Undaunted by growing evidence that their campaign is based on a falsehood, medical research groups launched their formal lobbying effort at a May 20 press conference. There they declared the formation of a lobbying coalition known as "Patients' CURe" (Coalition for Urgent Research).
The coalition claims to represent the interests of millions of patients whose cure depends on destructive embryo research. Yet Patients' CURe is spearheaded by the "Alliance for Aging Research," whose board of directors is a "Who's Who" of the for-profit drug and biotechnology industries. One board member is the president and CEO of the Geron Corporation. Geron and other industry groups clearly see an advantage in surrounding themselves with patients' groups that have more "grassroots" appeal.
Indeed, Daniel Perry of the Alliance for Aging Research told the National Journal, that there is a "confluence of interests" between patients and for-profit groups, so the groups decided to "put the stamp of victims" on the campaign for stem-cell research.
The coalition used its press conference to release a new opinion poll. According to Perry, the poll proves that "the vast majority of the American public" wants to "accelerate" embryonic stem cell research. The poll question, however, conveniently fails to mention that the cells will be obtained by killing live embryos or by contracting with abortionists for their victims' body parts. Nor does it mention that the proposed benefits of such research may be obtained in other ways.
Also featured at the press conference was researcher John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University. Gearhart testified before Congress last December about his success in obtaining stem cells from fetal tissue following abortions. Science reporters asked him the obvious question: since stem cells can be obtained from adults, and even his work with fetal tissue would be eligible for federal funding under current law, why must government also fund avenues that require destroying embryos for research purposes?
Gearhart answered that the alternative approaches are certainly "viable," but "we don't know which [approach] will be most successful." Therefore, in his view, the government should fund all approaches at once.
Of course Gearhart was missing the point. If the alternatives to embryonic stem cells are funded and found successful, there will be no reason to explore avenues that take human life. We don't know whether transplanting beating hearts from live adults might be even more "successful" than transplanting them from dead people either, but that doesn't mean the government should equally support both approaches.
Despite this weak rationale, patients' groups said they would aggressively lobby members of Congress so no restrictions are placed on plans for destructive embryo research.
A few days later, Washington news media kept the pot boiling by "leaking" the draft recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) on this topic. The Washington Post printed its front-page story on Sunday, May 23, and other news outlets followed suit the next day.
In fact the report had been publicly distributed nearly two weeks earlier at NBAC's May 11 public meeting, with a warning on every page that the text could not be cited or attributed to the commission because it is only a first draft. The Post was simply the first newspaper to ignore this warning.
What is refreshing about the draft NBAC report is its candor, for it soundly refutes the claim that funding embryonic stem cell research will not involve the government in killing embryos. That claim is essential to the argument that this research can be funded without violating current law against funding of destructive embryo research.
But, according to the NBAC draft report, "[a]s long as embryos are destroyed as part of the research enterprise, researchers using embryonic stem cells (and those who fund them) will be complicit in the death of embryos."
Unfortunately, the draft proceeds to argue that because of the potential medical benefits, Congress should change the law so the destructive harvesting of stem cells from human embryos - - as well as subsequent research on the cells - - can receive federal funds.
NBAC's candor puts advocates of embryonic stem cell research in a difficult position. They would no doubt like to use the NBAC report to claim that their funding proposals for stem cell research are "moderate." After all, they will argue, NBAC would like to go even farther and fund the act of destruction itself. But NBAC is also pointing out that the claim that funding embryonic stem cell research is in accord with current law is disingenuous and morally incoherent. Hypocrisy and evasion of the law are not the same as moderation.
NBAC's own attempt at a "compromise" argument in favor of destructive embryo research has chilling implications. Its draft report points out that the federal government generally does not fund abortions, but does fund them when they are "necessary" to save the life of the mother. By the same token, it argues, government can ethically fund lethal embryo research when it is "necessary" to produce lifesaving benefits for others that cannot otherwise be obtained.
Thus NBAC takes the vanishingly rare (or nonexistent) case in which two lives are pitted against each other, and expands it to a general principle by which any human being might be sacrificially killed to provide future benefits to others. In effect, all unborn children can be seen as attacking the lives of others by failing to volunteer themselves for lethal research. By this logic, all loving mothers who carry their unborn children to term instead of handing them over for such destruction can be seen as endangering the lives of countless other people.
At its root this argument is totalitarian: it treats each individual human being as a mere organ in the body politic, to be sacrificed when needed to serve the whole organism. The fact that NBAC had to resort to this idea to justify funding this research only highlights how radical its agenda is.
The other lethal flaw in NBAC's argument, of course, is that there is now ample evidence that destructive embryo research is not necessary to obtain lifesaving benefits. On this point, NBAC simply downplays some of the new information about morally acceptable alternatives and willfully ignores the rest.
That information is harder to ignore every day. As this issue was going to press, the June 8 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reported startling progress in using nerve stem cells from the brains of mice to repair damage and restore function in the brains of other mice. In a few years the researchers hope to initiate similar trials in humans. Since nerve stem cells can be obtained from human adults even after death, in the future these cells might be donated after death as hearts and livers are now. Once again it seems that destructive embryo research is irrelevant to the advance of lifesaving research.
Nonetheless, the NIH continues to say that draft guidelines for funding embryo research will soon be published in the Federal Register for public comment. At a June 3 meeting of the Advisory Committee to the director of NIH, the working group preparing these guidelines said they are still not ready. When they are released, however, they will provide a large and well-defined target for pro-life criticisms.
Mr. Doerflinger is associate director for policy development at the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and a regular contributor to National Right to Life News.
Coalition Formed to Force Taxpayer Funding of Lethal Embryo Research
On May 20 the following groups announced that they have joined "Patients' CURe" (Coalition for Urgent Research) to lobby for federal taxpayer funding of stem cell research that requires the killing of human embryos:
Alliance for Aging Research
The ALS Association
American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association
American Cancer Society
American Parkinson Disease Association
Cancer Leadership Council
Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation
Citizens for Public Action on Blood Pressure & Cholesterol
Cure for Lymphoma Foundation
Glaucoma Research Foundation
Huntington's Disease Society of America
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International
Kidney Cancer Association
National Coalition for Cancer Research
National Coalition of Autoimmune Patient Groups
National Health Council
National Marfan Foundation
National Osteoporosis Foundation
National Patient Advocate Foundation
National Spinal Cord Injury Association
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Parkinson's Action Network
Research!America
Resolve, The National Infertility Association
Society for the Advancement of Women's Health Research
Spina Bifida Association of America Foundation
Tourette's Syndrome Association, Inc.
Spearheading the coalition is the Alliance for Aging Research, which claims to represent the interests of millions of aging Americans. The alliance's Board of Directors, however, is dominated by top executives of the for-profit pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.
Pro-life Americans who belong to these groups or have donated funds to them may want to write to them protesting their support for using taxpayers' funds to promote the destruction of human life. Those who have experience with these diseases, personally or within their families, can write to their representatives in Congress to remind them that many patients do not want cures for their conditions to be pursued in ways that destroy the lives of others.