06-30-2001

SCIENCE: Oval Office Clones Bioethics Controversy

Consider this: A President by the name of Bush decides against devoting
federal dollars to a particularly promising but controversial form of
medical research and instead pushes for an alternative and more
restrictive approach. His decision is met with cries of protest from the
medical-research community, objections from the Republican Leader in the
Senate, and strong criticism from the major media, including The
Washington Post, which editorializes that the research offered "the
best hope for progress on curing such diseases as
Parkinson's."


But scientists later proceed with the research anyway, and in March 2001,
The New York Times reports the results a failure, noting that some
patients suffered from side effects that researchers called
"absolutely devastating ... tragic, catastrophic."


The President, in this case, was George H.W. Bush, and the controversial
research was the transplantation of brain cells from aborted fetuses into
patients suffering from degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's.
Although the research community, the media, and Senate Minority Leader Bob
Dole, R-Kan., supported the fetal brain-tissue transplants a decade ago,
Bush instead directed that federal scientists use tissue only from fetuses
that miscarried or died in-utero.


Later, however, President Clinton approved federal funding for the fetal
brain-cell research. Recently, scientists, including Dr. Curt Freed of the
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver, a leader in the
field, reported the results of the first carefully controlled study of
fetal transplants, and the results were not encouraging. Although some
patients with Parkinson's were helped, most were not, and the treatment
caused some patients to shake uncontrollably after the embryos' vibrant
brain cells kept growing.


Now, another President by the name of Bush, George W., faces a very
similar controversy, this time over whether his Administration can
legally-and perhaps, morally-give federal money to scientists to conduct
research on stem cells taken from human embryos, in the hope that the
cells can help in the treatment of diseases such as Parkinson's. White
House officials are aware of the previous controversy.


Scientists hope that embryo stem cells can be persuaded to grow into
particular organ tissues, so they can be used to "patch" the
diseased organs of millions of patients suffering cruelly from Parkinson's
and other lethal diseases. The scientists have the vocal support of
university presidents, biotechnology executives, many Democratic
legislators, some patients' groups, leading Republicans such as Sen. Orrin
G. Hatch, R-Utah, and major newspapers, including The Washington Post.
Such research, however, destroys the embryos, and opponents fear it may
spur future mass production of embryos for patient transplants.


The alternative approach, pushed by a loose coalition of anti-abortion
groups and a few abortion-rights organizations, would use federal funding
only for research on stem cells that can be harmlessly removed from
adults. These adult stem cells also show promise, and in many cases, have
also been used to cure patients of deadly diseases.


The similarities between the Bush I and Bush II controversies extend to
the media coverage, which is again portraying the fight as science versus
religion, and not as what it really is-a deep dispute over bioethics,
according to Doug Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to
Life Committee. But Lawrence Soler, co-chair of the Coalition for the
Advancement of Medical Research, and a lobbyist for the Juvenile Diabetes
Research Foundation International, a leading embryo-research advocacy
group, says that there are real differences between the two debates. Back
then, the dispute was over fetal tissue. Today, he said, it is about
tissue from "in-vitro fertilized eggs" that would be discarded
anyway, and that "could save the lives of 100 million
people."


The White House was slated to take a position in March, but has pushed the
decision back to July, giving embryo-research advocates more time to build
support for continued federal funding. "The President has not made up
his mind," said White House spokesman Jimmy Orr. "He wants to
ascertain if the legal opinion issued by the prior Administration violates
the law."


Language added to appropriations bills since 1996 by then-Rep. Jay Dickey,
R-Ark., prohibits federal funding for research in which human embryos are
destroyed. Last year, however, President Clinton approved a legal opinion
that concluded the Dickey language did not bar federal funds for stem-cell
research as long as the cells were removed from the embryo by scientists
using only private, not federal, funds. If Bush accepts this view, which
is strongly supported by his new Health and Human Services Secretary,
Tommy G. Thompson, he can legally direct funds toward the embryo-cell
research.


Thompson, although he is anti-abortion, has been the most forceful
advocate of federal funding, dating back to his recent tenure as governor
of Wisconsin, where early embryo stem-cell research took place. "He
has a pretty firm understanding [of the research], greater than most
politicians," said Dr. James A. Thomson, the scientific director of
the WiCell Research Institute Inc., the nation's leading embryo-cell
research center, based near the University of Wisconsin (Madison).


But the legal question is also highly political, because Bush must balance
several constituencies and his personal beliefs. Over the past few weeks,
the embryo-research coalition commissioned a supportive poll, gathered
petition signatures from patients and scientists, and won support from
such anti-abortion Republicans as Hatch and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.- and
most recently, a favorable mention by Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott,
R-Miss., who has not announced his support for either position.


It seems now that a majority of the Senate would support embryo-cell
research, said a White House official. But embryo cell advocates aren't
sure what Bush will decide. "I don't think anyone knows for sure what
will happen, [although] we've seen more and more people express supporting
views," Soler said. Michael Werner, the bioethics counsel at the
Washington-based Biotechnology Industry Organization, said that "the
safest bet is the President will side with the [opponents of embryo-cell
research, so] we still have an uphill battle."


The camp pushing for the use of adult stem cells, meanwhile, fears that
the embryo-cell lobbying campaign, and the statements from Hatch and other
GOP legislators, will give Bush enough political cover to reverse his
earlier statements opposing embryo-cell research. Advocates in this camp
have also collected a large number of petition signatures, commissioned
their own supportive poll, and presented their case to any White House
officials willing to listen. Among the policy makers on their side, say
adult-cell proponents, is Karl Rove, the president's political director.
Rove wants to cement support from Catholic voters worried about bioethics,
but he personally "gets the stuff on the ethical side, too," a
Hill staffer said.


Adult-cell advocates can cite numerous statements from Bush to bolster
their case and confidence. The White House's standard comment on the issue
includes this passage: "For the President, this is first and foremost
an ethical issue, and his beliefs are centered in the preservation of
human life at any stage of development." Also, "the President
opposes the destruction of human embryos-including the creation of human
embryos for research purposes or the creation of any incentives for the
destruction of human embryos." Also encouraging for the adult-cell
team is the Administration's June 20 announcement opposing the cloning of
humans, either for birth or for stem-cell transplants.


But the pressure from Thompson and the research industry is great, said
one worried adult-cell advocate. Even Bush's statement against cloning may
only be a rhetorical sop to anti-abortion forces in order to lay the
groundwork for a concession on embryo stem cells, the advocate
said.


Whatever Bush decides, he is sure to be criticized. After issuing so many
statements against embryo-cell research, any reversal would cause "an
explosion of people saying we can't trust this President," a Hill
conservative said. On the other hand, if Bush does anything less than
accept the Clinton rules, he will be making a political decision to favor
anti-abortion extremists over the science and the health of millions of
Americans, said Rob Atkinson, a vice president for technology issues at
the centrist Democratic Leadership Council's Progressive Policy Institute.
"I think the Republican Party runs the risk of being seen as the
antediluvian, Luddite party that wants to put imperatives of its political
base ahead of science," he said.


How the President presents his decision "will be one of the most
important things," said a White House official. If the decision goes
against embryo-cell research, the media will present it as a crass
political calculation by Rove, but if the decision funds some embryo-cell
research, "I don't think [the media] will be unkind to us [although]
they won't give us much credit," the official said.


Observers hope that Bush will use his decision for or against embryo-cell
research to spark a national debate on bioethics that transcends the
partisan fight over abortion. "If we are unable to deal with this, we
are turning away from the biggest challenge government has-[deciding] what
are the criteria for being one of us," said David Murray, director of
the Statistical Assessment Service, a Washington-based, nonpartisan
research group that helps the media pick through scientific claims.
Without a political debate, he said, "events will be in the saddle,
riding mankind."


Neil Munro

National Journal