Stem Cell Research

One of the first items of business that the new Democrat majority in the U. S. House of Representatives dealt with was to pass legislation authorizing federal funding of research on stem cells derived from the destruction of fertilized embryos. Contrary to public perception, there is no ban on embryonic stem cell research. Scientists are free to use private funds and much work continues. The only prohibition has been on federal taxpayer funding which is the objective of this legislation. The Senate has yet to take up the issue in the new Congress. This bill (H.R. 3) is sponsored by Diana DeGette (D-CO) and is one that raises passions of proponents and opponents alike.

The theoretical question yearns to be answered regarding the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells for a multitude of diseases. Certainly, the use of adult stem cells has demonstrated great benefit in treatment of dozens of diseases, and some scientists, policy makers, and others understandably wonder about the possible uses for stem cells derived from living embryos. However, embryonic stem cell research to date has not demonstrated a breakthrough, but has consistently demonstrated problems with rejection and tumor growth.

Opponents, such as me, raise the obvious ethical question: since life begins at conception, taking of one life, even if in theory to benefit another, is morally unacceptable.

Virtually everyone on both sides of this debate embraces the desire to further research, but the moral question involving life itself has dominated the issue until recently.

Scientists working on this issue have developed many other theories to harvest and research pluripotent stem cells (long-lived, adaptable cells) without destroying life.

While in Congress, I co-sponsored legislation known as HR 5526 that would have provided funding for pluripotent stem cell research from various origins, but without destroying embryonic life. Days before the 2007 House debate and vote, news accounts widely reported on breakthrough research demonstrating that this type of stem cell could be harvested from amniotic fluid (the ‘water’ that surrounds babies in the womb). Here’s a sample from The Washington Post (not exactly a conservative mouthpiece):

"A type of cell that floats freely in the amniotic fluid of pregnant women has been found to have many of the same traits as embryonic stem cells, including an ability to grow into brain, muscle and other tissues that could be used to treat a variety of diseases, scientists reported yesterday. The cells, shed by the developing fetus and easily retrieved during routine prenatal testing, are easier to maintain in laboratory dishes than embryonic stem cells – the highly versatile cells that come from destroyed human embryos and are at the center of a heated congressional debate that will resume this week. Moreover, because the cells are a genetic match to the developing fetus, tissues grown from them in the laboratory will not be rejected if they are used to treat birth defects in that newborn, researchers said. Alternatively, the cells could be frozen, providing a personalized tissue bank for use later in life." (Rick Weiss, "Scientists See Potential in Amniotic Stem Cells," The Washington Post, 1/8/07)

I believe the case is quiet clear. This debate is more about the continuing federal government protected right to destroy embryonic and fetal life, as originally determined by Roe v. Wade 40 years ago, than it is about unlocking new science. If such were not the case, the supporters of DeGette’s legislation would broaden their scope to include research that addresses the same theoretical objective, but without crossing the great ethical boundary of destroying life in the process.

One of the champions of this debate in the U.S. House is Dr. Phil Gingrey of Georgia. As an OB-GYN physician, he certainly understands both the science of this debate as well as the sanctity of life. I’ve invited him to offer his insight to readers of A Line of Sight which appears here, and I thank him for his valuable leadership.

You may also read an editorial I wrote that appeared last year in the Denver Catholic Register on this same subject by clicking here.