Stem the Stem Cell Debate

A week ago, Obama announced that he would lift President George W. Bush’s ban on stem cell research. The announcement set the chattering classes aflame. House minority leader John Boehner accused Obama of “further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity.” A senior U.S. cardinal called it a “sad victory of politics over science and ethics.” Others, many of whom support stem cell research, responded with particular fervor to Obama’s claim that he was putting science before politics. The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer called the address an “outrage” and “morally unserious in the extreme.”

While Obama’s speech was a momentous one, concerned citizens on both sides of the ideological divide should be wary of attaching too much importance to Obama’s decision. The policy shift is simply a matter of degree. Under Bush, funding for research on embryonic stem cells was not prohibited but just limited to the lines already in existence. Though federal money could not flow to new embryonic stem cell research clinics, eight states (and big ones, too, like New York and California) funded their own labs and allowed private funding. While the opening of federal funds to stem cells will lead to an expansion of research facilities, scientists will likely still only be permitted to use embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. The fact that Obama declined to state solid ethics guidelines does not mean that the scientists at National Institute of Health will allow researchers to create embryos at will to harvest at their pleasure.

Much of the indignation on online message boards points to the efficacy of adult stem cells as an alternative to embryonic stem cells, with some even supporting the outlandish argument that stem cell advocates must be somehow connected to the abortion industry. Much of this reflects confusion over how adult stem cells work. Stem cell therapies focus on regrowing parts of the body, but adult stem cells are less versatile than embryonic stem cells since they can typically only grow into cell types found in the tissue where they originated. Many scientists hope that adult stem cells may be coaxed into transforming into a wider range of cell types, but as of now the cells are not well understood.

It’s also important to note that the majority of Americans support expanding stem cell research. A recent Gallup poll found that only four in 10 Americans support further restrictions. Claims that Obama is pursuing the pet causes of liberal scientists against the wishes of most Americans are simply incorrect.

However, the pro-stem cell contingent is also guilty of overblown rhetoric, not only for labeling the decision as a godsend but also for being too cavalier about procedures with legitimate ethical concerns. Stem cell advocates often make their case on the research’s life-saving potential, stressing the merit of destroying a five-day-old embryo to save a five-year-old girl. But this is an unfair comparison. Yes, the number of available stem cell lines will hopefully reach somewhere in the hundreds, but it will be 120 days before the NIH will even come up with new research guidelines, much less start doling out grants to scientists. Life-saving therapy derived from stem cell research is still many years in the future, and remedies for that girl may not be developed until she is old enough to have five-year-olds of her own.

Furthermore, the pro-research camp often goes too far in disregarding the significance of embryos as the origins of human life. A recent Crimson editorial (“Cell-ebration,” March 10) used highly misleading language in calling embryos “merely a collection of cells.” Embryos are a far cry from a toddler, but we should exercise caution about starting down the path toward sacrificing human life simply to harvest components for experiments.

However, far more important than the stem cell decision was Obama’s memorandum to ensure openness about science and protect scientists, released at the same time. This marks a far greater departure from the Bush administration and cuts to the heart of the debate on many issues, such as conservation and global warming, in discounting the “false choice between science and moral values.” As I pointed out in an earlier column, the Bush administration was often directly antagonistic to concerns of scientists, allegedly editing releases about global warming, silencing a top climatologist through NASA, and pressuring the surgeon general not to discuss the dangers of secondhand smoke.

Obama’s memo will encourage the spirit of free debate and may help lead to the greater dissemination of apolitical findings. But, more importantly, it promises that policymakers will accept and grapple with scientific evidence, not ignore or censor it when it clashes with the president’s policies. Obama has already made good on this promise by issuing a memorandum that will restore a provision of the Endangered Species Act that requires federal agencies to consult the Fish and Wildlife Service before taking action on endangered species. Hopefully, the stem cell decision will be seen not as the end of morality in science policy, but as the beginning of an era where science is again taken seriously by the federal government.


Adam R. Gold ’11, a Crimson editorial writer, is a physics concentrator in Adams House. His column appears on alternate Mondays.