A post we wrote last week mentioned Bush's veto of the H.R. 810, which would have allowed federal funding for expanded stem cell research. Stem cell opponents have glibly wielded a kaleidoscope of rhetorical devices and science falsehoods to strengthen their debate against embryonic stem cell research. Senator Brownback's straight-faced speech in Senate debate, where he gravely explained an seven year old's drawings of an embryo talking, as well as his expository on the parallels between baby eagles and humans are fine examples of the types of distortions in play. We would laugh along with Jon Stewart, if it weren't so sadly preposterous. Why no one bothered to storm the podium during Brownback's fake-science "show and tell" eludes us. The all-American metaphor he's drawn up about the bald eagle hatching from the egg 'just like a human being' might be a ripe tale from a 16th century science pageant, but how has he been allowed to propagate these claims since at least 2001?
An editorial in this week's Nature, "Come veto or high water", commented on the veto and its likely effect on the field of stem cell research in the United States. Tucked in at the end of the article, was a reminder of other fallacies in Bush's veto speech on stem cells. About the proposed law, Nature quotes Bush:
"American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos. And I'm not going to allow it."
Nature retorts:
"This is patently untrue. The vetoed bill would not have allowed federal funding for the derivation of human embryonic stem cells from leftover embryos at fertility clinics, and the attendant destruction¹ of the embryos. It simply allowed taxpayer-funded research on the stem cells thus derived. The derivation itself would still need to be financed with non-federal funds."
It is challenging to track all the wild administrative assertions and Nature makes a good point, one that hasn't been widely publicized in light of of the more flagrant lapses of factual representation¹. The bill is very short. It says:
"notwithstanding other provisions...the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo)"...
It then lays out the conditions for how embryos can be obtained from IVF patients. However, it sidesteps the procedures to derive the stem-cells from the embryos, the ones that stem-cell opponents are most apoplectic about. The stem cell derivations would ostensibly be conducted with private funds.
Nature isn't specific about whether they're referring to text of H.R.810, or to previous legislation, but arguably both HR 810 and previous legislation would block researchers from deriving stem cells from embryos. The previous legislation most commonly referred to is the 1995 Dickey Amendment, which is attached to all Labor, HHS (which included NIH), and Education appropriations acts from FY1997 through FY2004. The Amendment forbids the creation of embryos for research and protects embryos from research that would cause 'injury, harm, or death'. This has prevented federal funding of stem cell research to date, and would have remained in place had the president signed H.R. 810. Although this legislation is in place, arguably all the existing legislation is open to various scientific and legal interpretations. One "pro-life" writer discusses her interpretation of potential loopholes in this lengthy but informative article. All sides are concerned with the interpretations of the bills, which puts the flurry of recent, seemingly redundant legislation in perspective.
The Nature author questions why the delicate balance between private and public funding was not achieved for stem cell research: "it [is] exactly this kind of compromise that has forged America's uneasy but workable abortion policy: abortions are legal, but in no case are taxpayers required to see their dollars fund them. However these could be easily viewed as two different ethical situations. Although the allowed use of tissues after abortion has some parallels to the use of embryos after IVF, abortion itself involves a medically driven clinical procedure initiated on the behest of an adult. Not to mention, we all assume, that the current "workable abortion policy", is most likely being worked over by the administration as we write.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., states like Illinois and New Jersey have stepped in to bolster state stem cell initiatives. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger jiggled that state's beleaguered finances to loan $150 million to the well-publicized stem cell research program -- savvy largess in an election year. Earlier this week the European Union voted to fund stem cell research, although it voted to exclude the "procurement" of stem cells. Yesterday ESI, a stem cell consortium in Singapore announced that they had derived four new human embryonic cell lines in conjunction with a Sydney fertility clinic.
Stem cell research moves on while the U.S. is transfixed by talking embryos.
-------
¹ Why the author chose to keep the "destruction" wording, is less obvious. It's unfortunate that the loaded word has been incorporated into the debate. While those who are opposed to stem cell research proliferate their righteous rhetoric with "destroy", or "destruction", you don't often meet researchers who "destroy", unless they're working with cancer cells, viruses or other deleterious conditions.
