Political Influence Over Stem Cell

Political Influence Over Stem Cell Research

Stem cell science holds tremendous potential to benefit the human condition by providing potential cures for myriad diseases and traumatic injuries. Together with the data contributed by the successful decoding of the entire human genome, medical applications of stem cell scientific research could conceivably end all human illness. However, political opposition to stem cell research and development has substantially stymied its potential in the United States to the extent that this nation no longer leads the research field. In major respects, the political roadblocks put in place by George W. Bush to appease the conservative Right Wing conflict with fundamental constitutional principles. Future resolution of the issues is likely to involve the rejection of religious-based criteria in restrictive legislation of stem cell research and substituting them with objective ethical principles and traditional concepts of medical ethics to address any actual potential for harmful or otherwise irresponsible unethical use of developments in the field.

Introduction:

Human societies have used genetic manipulation and cloning for millennia, such as in connection with raising specific strains of crops in farming (Levine, 2008).

In principle, the discovery of the DNA Helix by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 paved the way for human genetic research, but developing the appropriate technologies to exploit that potential required several more decades. Eventually, it would lead to various beneficial therapeutic applications now considered quite routine, such as in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and genetic screening (Levine, 2008).

Shortly before the turn of the 21st century, scientific research in the area of heredity artificial genetic manipulation had progressed to the point of being able to clone simple organisms and more complex organisms such as sheep, albeit not entirely without problems and complications (Tong, 2007). More importantly, subsequent applications of stem cell research demonstrated incredible beneficial potential to cure human diseases that have defied even the most sophisticated available treatments, in addition to obviating the entire concept of organ donation for transplantation and providing the only realistic hope for victims of traumatic paralysis (Lo, Chuang, & Lamb, 2003).

To a large extent, the medical applications of stem cell science with the greatest beneficial potential have already been verified by previous research. While they may require substantial additional research investment to perfect and develop for clinical use, there is little disagreement on academic grounds that the envisioned applications are not technologically feasible (Lo, Chuang, & Lamb, 2003). However, political opposition from the conservative Right Wing has long opposed revolutionary advances in medical science and that has lead several successive American presidential administrations to restrict scientific progress inappropriately (Dershowitz, 2002).

In that regard, former First Lady Nancy Reagan eventually apologized and publicly reversed the vehement opposition to stem cell research that characterized the Reagan White House throughout two terms in office (Pollack, 2007; Tong, 2007). Her public statement and subsequent support for aggressive stem cell research was precipitated by her experience with Alzheimer's suffered by former President Ronald Reagan in his last years of life and her realization that some of the areas of scientific research to which the Reagans had been so opposed offer realistic hope for a cure for Alzheimer's (Pollack, 2007; Tong, 2007).

The Detrimental Effect of Legislative Restriction on Stem Cell Scientific Research:

The policies supported and implemented by the presidential administration of George W. Bush since the earliest phase of his first term in office were the most restrictive and to a large extent, had virtually the same effect as an outright ban on the entire field of the most productive area with the greatest immediate potential to benefit the human community: namely, embryonic stem cell research (Getchell, 2001). The federal ban on stem cell research funding prohibited federal funding for any research use of embryonic stem cells lines not already in existence in (otherwise) eligible research labs in August of 2001 (Dershowitz, 2002; Getchell, 2001; Levine, 2008).

The federal ban on embryonic stem cell research allowed certain types of privately funded embryonic research on the 21 cell lines developed prior to August 2001, but President Bush vetoed numerous bills passed by Congress throughout his presidency despite growing realization among even the lay educated community of the uncontroverted value of embryonic stem cell research (Friedrich, 2004). Unfortunately, the quality of the stem cell lines created before the 2001 ban degraded and rendered them relatively useless for some of the most important types of research after only several years (Levine, 2008; Tong, 2007).

In March 2009, the scientific and medical communities rejoiced after President Barack Obama repealed the federal ban on funding research on embryonic stem cells, although that decision did not change other fundamental prohibitions. Whereas embryonic stem cell research is now eligible in connection with new stem cell lines created (privately) since 2001, the ban on federal funding for the creation of the new lines themselves is still in effect. Governmental restriction on stem cell research in the U.S. all but extinguished any domestic progress in the field for two principal reasons: (1) more than 90% of all high-level medical research conducted in the U.S. is completely dependent on federal funding, and (2) the most useful type of stem cells for research purposes must be acquired from embryonic tissue because other types of stem cells are less suitable for such research (Kinsley, 2007; Levine, 2008).

All human tissues contain stem cells, but adult stem cells must be extracted from the bone marrow of donors at great expense, discomfort, and the risk of certain medical complications associated with invasive surgical extraction techniques (Pollack, 2007; Talan, 2007). Stem cells are particularly useful for medical research because they have the potential to develop into different kinds of human tissues at the direction of researchers. In principle, this allows the artificial growth of natural tissues such as ski, bone, and even entire organs grown from tissue that is genetically identical to that of the donor (Lo, Chuang, & Lamb, 2003).

While adult stem cells are useful for certain limited applications, their range of tissues into which they can potentially be developed is substantially less broad than that of embryonic stem cells (Talan, 2007). The primary sources of human embryonic stem cells are IVF embryos, legally aborted fetuses, and umbilical cord blood extracted during healthy births. Given the political sensitivity associated with legal abortion in the first place, nobody has ever seriously suggested using aborted fetuses as a source of embryonic stem cells, but in reality, that would be a perfectly ethical approach that could provide substantial benefit from legally aborted fetuses that are treated as medical waste otherwise (Tong, 2007).

One of the most important bills vetoed by former president George Bush pertained to the use (with the consent of the donors) of excess embryos produced in IVF clinics (Levine, 2008). The nature of IVF procedures require the creation of approximately one dozen embryos at a time just to produce a single viable pregnancy, mainly because of the expense and discomfort associated with the extraction procedure. As a result, excess embryos exist in very large numbers in IVF clinics across the nation. By federal law under the previous administration, none of those valuable sources of embryonic stem cell tissue could be funded for use to create new lines of stem cells although they could be frozen indefinitely or discarded as medical waste at the option of the donors. Likewise, even completely benign sources of stem cells such as the umbilical cord blood of healthy deliveries could be used to develop new stem cell lines funded by federal grants (Levine, 2008).

In 2007, two different (unrelated) research groups in the U.S. And Japan developed methods of using adult stem cells in a manner that more closely approximated the potential uses possible with embryonic stem cells (Pollack, 2007; Talan, 2007). In some respects, that was helpful because it created avenues to pursue federal funding for some of the types of research that had previously been entirely dependent on the availability of embryonic stem cells. In other respects, it was hardly much consolation over the tremendous amount of valuable research that had been delayed almost a full decade in the U.S. because of unfounded and inappropriate political opposition (Kinsley,

2007; Talan, 2007).

The Fundamental Basis of Political Opposition:

At the root of the political rhetoric generating the opposition to stem cell research is the religious belief that human life is fundamentally different from other biological life forms because of the supposed connection to a supreme deity. In turn, that belief relates directly to the subsequent argument that human life begins at conception. As a result, the religious majority has inspired a powerful conservative political lobby to which candidates for political office and the office of the President himself find themselves beholden in various degrees. According to many political observers, President Bush used the most conservative elements of the Republican Right Wing for political advantage and that motivated his intransigence over the stem cell research issue even apart from his conservative personal religious views (Kinsley, 2007).

The core special interest groups who vehemently oppose stem cell research are largely the same groups who have traditionally fought to overturn the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade that established a national right to elective abortion (Dershowitz, 2002). Going back further, the same religious principals also inspired opposition to organ transplants and blood transfusions; before that, the Catholic Church strictly forbade any forensic scientific research, necessitating the need to dissect cadavers for medical education entirely in secret (Levine, 2008).

Just as the news media are partially at fault today for their failure to distinguish legitimate concerns from ludicrous fears in connection with the ongoing political debate over American healthcare, they are equally responsible for allowing unfounded fears of "human cloning" in connection with the beneficial uses of stem cell science. Specifically, the main source of secular opposition to stem cell research is attributable to unnecessary fears of rampant misuse of human cloning technology to clone human beings. While human cloning is hypothetically possible, no responsible scientific researcher would ever misuse current biomedical technology in that fashion. The complexities of cloning entire organisms have been well documented in animal experiments and substantial technical obstacles remain before anybody reputable would consider human experimentation of this nature for that reason alone (Levine, 2008; Tong, 2007).

Objective Ethical Analysis:

The principle reasons that doctrinal objection to stem cell research is inappropriate are (1) it is logically flawed and (2) it contradicts the fundamental concept of separation of church and state embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution (Dershowitz, 2002). First, the religious-based belief that human life begins at conception is entirely subjective and incapable of being articulated (much less proven) in objective logical concepts and definitions. Second, while the U.S. Constitution specifically guarantees the right to maintain any religious beliefs without apology or justification, the same concept and constitutional provision also precludes religious beliefs from influencing public policy or secular law (Dershowitz, 2002).

Secular scientists do not claim to know precisely when a viable human embryo first becomes a person, partly because it is impossible to pinpoint exactly when specific human characteristics emerge and partly because embryonic and fetal development occurs in gradual stages rather than in sudden transformations. On the other hand, there is absolutely no logical justification for treating an embryo as a human being entitled to human rights at specific stages of development where any semblance of personhood can be definitively ruled out.

The fundamental argument predicated on the personhood of the embryo completely ignores the realities at the stages of development where the question is most easily answered. For example, in the earliest phase of human gestation, the fertilized ovum undergoes mitosis and splits into two cells, then four, eight, and so on. The religious doctrine that is responsible for the supposed "moral" objection to embryonic stem cell research maintains that any clump of four or eight undifferentiated individual human cells is already a person. That is strictly a religious position rather than a logical position; in fact, it would be impossible even for those adamantly holding that view to identify any small clump of fertilized cells in a Petri dish as human or nonhuman.

Moreover, no such protection applies to the thousands of IVF embryos created and then either frozen or destroyed as medical waste. In that regard, it seems logically and ethically incongruous that it be permissible to create excess human embryos in the IVF process only to discard or freeze them while it is impermissible to make beneficial use out those same embryos. In fact, the main controversy over stem cell research is precisely that it does not involve "cloning" human beings or even creating human tissue any further along than is already permitted in connection with other routine medical procedures.

The ideal source of embryonic stem cells are the embryos already in existence by the thousands in IVF clinics. Regardless of whether they are discarded as medical waste or authorized by the donors for use as a source of embryonic stem cells, neither results in the continued development of that tissue into the fetal stages of development. Certainly, by specific stages of fetal gestation, the issue of personhood does begin to arise legitimately. By "legitimate" one means simply that it is possible to articulate an objective basis for recognizing personhood: examples of logically objective bases for recognizing personhood would include sentience as well as brain waves. Regardless of the specific criteria, to qualify as legitimate they must be capable of objective description and cannot rely on any a priori religious beliefs defining human life or its supposed value in the embryonic stage. The U.S. Constitution provides both the right to maintain religious beliefs as well as the same right to live free from interference from the religious beliefs of others. Acquiescence on the part of political representative to opposition rooted in religious dogma violates that concept of religious freedom.