Standing Up for Stem
Cell Research
EDITORIAL, NYTimes on
the Web, July 18, 2006
The Senate is poised to vote today on
a bill that would greatly expand the number of embryonic stem cell lines that
can be used in federally financed medical research. This is actually an
extremely modest proposal that would allow the new stem cell lines to be derived
only from surplus embryos otherwise slated for destruction at fertility clinics.
Passage of this bill, which has already been approved by the House, is the very
least the Senate should do to spur advancement of one of the most promising
fields of biomedical research. A two-thirds majority of each house will be
needed to overcome a likely veto from President Bush.
Under current administration policy, scientists can use federal money for
research only on some 22 stem cell lines that already existed when President
Bush announced his policy in August 2001. Those lines were extracted from
microscopic embryos, no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence, that
were inevitably destroyed in the process. Mr. Bush was willing to accept
that fait accompli in the interest of advancing science but said he did
not want to encourage any further destruction of embryos by financing research
on additional lines.
That stance has increasingly hobbled embryonic stem cell research because many
of the existing lines are deteriorating, contaminated or suffer from technical
problems that limit their usefulness. The new proposal would make
thousands of surplus embryos from fertility clinics available for federally
funded research, a change that would be welcomed by most Americans but is
opposed by a minority of religious conservatives.
Our concern with the bill is how limited its reach would be. It would not
allow federal financing of the most promising field of research, known as
therapeutic or research cloning. Therapeutic cloning involves the creation
of embryos genetically matched to patients with specific diseases so that
scientists can extract their stem cells and then study how the diseases develop
and how best to treat them. The microscopic entities used in these studies
may be called embryos but they have none of the attributes of humanity and,
sitting outside the womb, no chance of developing into babies. It is no
more immoral to create and destroy embryos for therapeutic purposes than to
create and destroy surplus embryos for fertility purposes.
But for now the best hope lies with passage of the bill merely allowing use of
surplus fertility clinic embryos. If it passes in the Senate, it seems
almost certain to draw a veto from Mr. Bush, his first in six years in office.
Then it will be up to the House and the Senate to summon the will to override
the veto. If they fail to push through this very limited change in federal
policy, voters will need to hold all recalcitrant legislators accountable for
slowing research that holds great medical potential.
|
