| OCR Text |
Show Hingkley Journal of Politics 2006 (Fitzpatrick, 2003). They feel it is inconsistent to accept one and reject the other. Michael Sandel, a member of the President's council of Bioethics, poses the following question: "If the creation and sacrifice of spare embryos in infertility treatment is morally acceptable, why isn't the creation and sacrifice of embryos for stem cell research also acceptable?" (Fitzpatrick, 2003). CARE also argues that embryonic stem cells are over-hyped, and that the prospects of adult stem cell research are promising enough that embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary. In March of 2004, two studies in the research journal Nature refuted the claim that adult stem cells are as flexible as embryonic stem cells. Prominent adult stem cell researcher Catherine Verfaillie of the University of Minnesota states: "Some of the published, initial adult cell reports may have been too optimistic, and embryonic stem cells are still the 'gold standard' for flexibility" (Vergano, 2004). Dr. Verfaillie and most other researchers prefer to study both types of stem cells. James Thomson adds: The debate regarding whether adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells are 'better' is a creation of politics and the press, not of the scientific community. I know of no credible stem cell scientist that does not believe that both should be studied; human medicine will suffer if either is excluded (Vergano, 2004). The nothing is lost principle states just that: nothing is lost by conducting embryonic stem cell research. Advances in adult stem cell research are commendable, but research into both types of stem cells will likely lead to more rapid progress in understanding the benefits of stem cells. Political Implications On August 9, 2001 President Bush made his first televised Public address as president, announcing his policy on stem cell research. In this address he compared the embryos in question to snowflakes, commenting that each embryo is unique, and has the unique genetic potential of an individual human being. President Bush then prefaced his recommendation with the following statement: I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts, or creating life for our convenience. And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble [sic] ends do not justify any means (Bush, 2001). He stated that he would allow federal funding of research on 64 existing stem cell lines. He reasoned that these lines were already privately created, and the decision between life and death had already been made. This decision did not fund the destruction of any additional embryos. President Bush also announced that he would place more emphasis on alternate forms of stem cell research, such as umbilical cord, placenta, adult, and animal stem cells. None of these types of research require the destruction of a human embryo, thus avoiding the ethical dilemma of embryonic stem cell research (Bush, 2001). President Bush's policy established the following guidelines for eligibility to receive federal funding: 1. The derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 p.m. EDT on August 9, 2001. 2. The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed. 3. Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo and that donation must not have involved financial inducements (NIH, 2005a). Bush's policy received mixed reviews. This policy upset some conservatives who saw any type of funding towards stem cell research as morally wrong. Scientists saw this policy as a modest success, because federal funding had not been completely banned. But others charged that Bush's restrictions would cause research to proceed much slower than if it had been fully funded (Goldstein & Allen, 2001). The importance of federal funding cannot be overstated. The federal government supplies about 45% of medical and health research in this area. Private business, foundations, and donations fund the other 55%. The United States government is the largest funding source for this type of research in the world (UMCB, 2002, p .20). It is unlikely that the companies engaged in stem cell research will be profitable in the short term, and there is also the risk that the research will not produce a product or treatment that can be sold. Federal funds would allow the necessary resources to conduct the research. Federal funding is not only a more reliable source; it also allows agencies to place ethical guidelines or restrictions on the private sector (UMCB, 2002, p .20). The restrictions set in place have limited the United States' ability to be competitive with other countries. South Korea has taken the lead in stem cell research with the support of their government. It is illegal to perform abortions in South Korea, but forces that oppose abortion have not united against stem cell research as they have in the United States (Kirk, 2005.) This restrictive atmosphere could lead American scientists to leave the United States to conduct their research. Public Opinion Since President Bush announced his policy, interest in stem cell research has increased until today it is a commonly discussed topic, one with distinct divisions in opinion. A CNN/USA Today Poll taken from August 5-7, 2005, with a sample of 1,004 asked the following question: "Do you think the federal government should or should not fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human 19 |
