Bush's Latest Contribution(?) to Stem Cell Research

GW recently vetoed a bill aimed at reversing his 2001 restrictions on federally funded stem cell research. Specifically, the bill was looking to allow funding for research on discarded embryos from in vitro fertilization. Don't worry though, he okayed funding for "ethically responsible" research. Sweet! Wait, what? I'm not entirely sure what that means. Apparently, nothing - he's allowing researchers to work on stuff that they already could. I'm not saying that immoral stuff has never happened in science: Tuskegee and the Holocaust are the first two that jump to mind. But on the other hand, I don't think all scientists are willing to sacrifice their morals and human life in the name of science. So thanks Bush, you pretty much gave us nothing out of this latest veto and speech. Actually, I'm pretty sure you slowed down scientific progress.

One thing Bush seems intent on reiterating is that he will not allow America to destroy embryos for stem cell research. But wait, they're already destroyed as part of the in vitro fertilization process. Bush doesn't seem to have any problems with IVF. The moral fabric of America seems to be just fine, in spite of IVF embryo destruction. It seems that this moral dilemma has been posed and resolved, in favor of helping those who are biologically less fortunate. Society has decided that allowing infertile couples to conceive is a greater cause over the destruction of unused embryos. So Bush, if you're going to use the platform of embryo destruction to support your research ban, I'd appreciate you mentioning something about IVF and trying to attack that community.

Some might say that Bush isn't questioning the integrity of scientists and citizens per se. Instead, he's questioning what might happen if embryonic stem cell research is given federal backing. He's implying that things will get out of control and we'll be doing such things as producing embryos solely for the purpose of research or full human cloning. BTW, I'm against those previous two examples becoming realty. For one, has research been conducted in violation of Bush's now six year mandate? To my limited knowledge, no. And if it had been, I'm pretty sure it would be big news, as it would give Bush incredible support in a "see I told you so" type of way. But it hasn't.

So one simple solution is to allow embryonic stem cell research on those IVF embryos (with parental consent) already destined for destruction. This is what the vetoed bill was going to do. I'm not saying give science carte blanche on what they can do with these embryos. But just as Bush has already done, legislation could be passed to prohibit such things as full human cloning. Regulatory bodies such as IRBs are already in place to maintain ethical standards in research. But research regulation isn't the major hurdle here, as such institutions are already in place. The major hurdle is allowing such research to actually happen.

Disclaimer: this previous argument assumes a rational president. IVF was happening both before and after his 2001 speech; embryos were being destroyed both before and after his speech. No embryos are being created only for the purpose of research. Instead, they were already destined for destruction after implantation. So Bush, don't stand too far behind your wall of ethical concerns of embryo destruction. Why not further science a bit through stem cells? After all, it is science that allowed infertile couples to conceive in the first place.

As a molecular and cellular biology major, my dismay at Bush's stance comes from knowing the possible benefits of such research. Even as an MCB major I'd like to think that I've considered the negatives of ES research. In doing so, I still support the cause. But I digress. In 2000, there were about 16 million Americans with diabetes, with 23 million projected for 2010. In type I diabetes, stem cells could be used to generate functional pancreatic tissue and islet beta cells or to somehow offset the autoimmune response causing DM I in the first place. Type II DM has a wider range of etiologies, including hepatic and muscle tissue. Given various metabolic dysfunctions and glucose dysregulation, stem cells could be used to introduce normally functioning enzymes and regulators. Having done neurogenesis research for the past two years, I can appreciate the implications of stem cells in the neuroscience field. Neurogenesis is known to occur in only two small regions of the brain. Those who suffer through strokes, chronic seizures, and neurological disorder (Parkinson's, Huntington's) all have various areas of their brains damaged. Currently neurogenesis is confined to areas involving learning and memory, with these new neurons' roles still being established. If stem cell neurons could be introduced and integrated into brain-damaged areas, then there is a chance to regain motor and cognitive function.

I realize that my examples of stem cell therapy are radical interventions when compared to conventional therapy. But therein lies one of the biggest promises of stem cells. The chance to provide actual cures for various conditions as opposed to just treating them. With DM I, stem cells could make it possible to eliminate insulin problems at the source, instead of using passive treatments like insulin injections. Same thing for various neuro disorders. I know that this type of work will take time and money to develop. Which brings us back to the here and now. We've gotta start somewhere. Bush isn't helping that case.

I'm not the only person out there sharing this view. Republicans such as John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are in favor of expanding stem cell research funding. Science has reported (from research at Duke and Johns Hopkins) that sixty percent of those who've undergone IVF would like to donate their unused embryos to stem cell research. So Mr. Bush, a large number of Americans are in favor of stem cell research, members of your own party are in favor of it, and your main ethical problem has a significant logic problem. What? You say my reasoning is ambiguous and dated? I'll change my rhetoric as soon as you change yours - we've only heard the same thing for the past six years. At least mine has some logic behind it.