The Veto: Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda
For weeks, media headlines have reflected speculation in science and policy circles about what Bush would do with the stem cell bill. Lobbyists for both side publicly advised how he should and shouldn't vote. Today he answered the conservatives' pleas by vetoing the most controversial of three bills voted on in the Senate yesterday. The bill, H.R. 810, would have expanded the number of cell lines used in federally funded research.
Bush also signed S. 3504, a bill that would prohibits "fetal farming". The House voted against funding for adult stem cell research that would have funded the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act (S.2754), which proposed funding research to derive and study embryonic stem cells without "destroying babies". Although these bills were less controversial in the legislative and executive branches, none of the bills were entirely without controversy. S. 3504 aims to prevent the growth of human embryos specifically for research practices. Conservatives point to New Jersey's stem cell bill and say that it endorses "fetal farming". However New Jersey also passed a bill the bans human cloning, which directly prevents such a practice. Stem cell opponents insist that the law would create the dangerous slippery slope down which all of humanity will slip.
The Specter of "Fetal Farming" in the "Garden State"
S.3504 may have been written with ethical concerns in mind, but in this political climate, it doesn't seem far fetched to speculate that another purpose of the bill is to conflate medical research with science fiction by raising an unsavory specter of "fetal farming" for voters. Similarly, politicians brought attention to the abortion question with "partial birth" legislation, complete with all the grotesque visuals. They have now managed to distort the stem cell research question to one of whether to "destroy lives", as opposed to it's real purpose, to "save lives".
The implication that New Jersey "encourages fetal farming" is contrived. In vitro fertilization clinics already do research with or destroy unwanted or unclaimed 2-8 cell embryos and blastocysts. Bush's proposal that these embryos be adopted ignores the fact that more than 50% of the embryos won't be viable. There are other ethical quandries embryo adoption advocates blithely ignore. By their logic a couple of cells constitutes a "life". The Snowflake organization (hence, we suppose, the term "snowflake" babies), is a Christian organization that is supported by federal funding. The organization sells the "lives" but in reality less than 50% of these embryos will actually implant, with fertility procedures at clinics. So the agencies screen the parents as if they were adopting live children not a clump of cells. They charge exorbitant "agency fees" and as well are also supported by taxpayer dollars.
Some of the alternative ways of obtaining embryonic stem cell lines still involve working with existing embryos. The conservative attempts to draw moral lines around available technology will leave the decisions to the private sector, such as these embryo adoption agencies, who will assuredly aim to profit fully on all technology.
When Korea's stem cell research was at its height, San Francisco IVF clinic Pacific Fertility Center was part of a consortium of institutions collaborating on the research. The fertility center's contribution to the consortium would have been providing donated eggs for the creation of cell lines used in the research. Women would have been recruited to give eggs via clinically administered hormone therapy. Clearly these types of business alignments around stem cell research presents some ethical quandaries. But while the issues abound, it seems like conservative politicians tend to focus on the most morally repugnant and divisive facets of complicated issues, and tend to skew issues to evoke outrage rather than invite discourse that will enable citizens grapple reasonably with the issues.
Pardon Us, We're Busy Destroying the World
While Bush's veto will affect funding for research, as well as the nation's ability to compete in this important international research arena with cohesive federal and private resources, the vote is unlikely to change the brisk pace of stem cell research in the private sector. Already, many researchers don't use the lines that Bush approved in 2001, as they have not aged well, are contaminated, and can be more costly than those available through private institutions like Harvard. However, while cloning and stem cell research may thrive in the private sector, at some point shouldn't the government wake up to the paradigm shift that the technology brings and offer realistic policy options?
White House spokesperson Dana Perino's comments after Bush's veto were especially noteworthy in how they contorted the image of scientists and ignored the fact that stem cell research is supported by Democrats, Republicans and 70% of the American population, from all religious backgrounds and walks of life. She said:
"There is a strong difference of opinion and the president recognizes that....He also understands that there is a difference between when you are a scientist and when you are a policy-maker, when you are weighing the profound and unique responsibilities that you have as a policy-maker."
In light of world events, it's comical, almost, to frame scientists this way, as aliens, bereft of the sage wisdom of a policy-maker (like Bush), willing to destroy life, even the world, when tickled by the slightest inkling of curiosity. Then that's the reason they are summarily removed from places like bioethics committees -- because they are incapable of such hefty, profound, thoughts? Or more honestly is it because the reality that they present is out of step with the desired policy? Not to mention the irony of Congress and Bush contemplating the brave new evil world of stem cell research for the last two days, while explosive world aggession escaped comment. Except accidentally, of course, when the mic was on, and in between bites of buttered roll, when we were treated to insightful political analysis à la Bush. We've heard little about the lives being lost in the evolving war between Lebanon and Israel (with Syria and Iran hovering nearby), the self destruction of Iraq aided by U.S. activation energy, India's saber rattling with Pakistan, North Korea's irrascible nuclear threats. Perhaps we can restrict all our ethical conundrums to science research. Brave president, vetoing the bad bill.
--------------------
Correction: An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that S 2754 was also signed by Bush. That bill was not passed by the House of Representatives.
