Stemming Government Cell Research

November 28, 2007

Stemming Government Cell Research

The stem cell news that came out last week has been making well deserved headlines. As Father Thomas Berg of the Westchester Institute put it, “a new day has dawned in the world of stem cell research.”

In separate articles in the journals Science and Cell, research teams in Wisconsin and Japan both demonstrated that they have achieved the reprogramming of adult stem cells to exhibit all the developmental capabilities of embryonic stem cells.

What this means is that the debate about whether adult cells or embryonic cells have more therapeutic potential is now moot. It is no longer possible to pit the moral concerns of those who object to the use of embryonic stem cells (because it involves the destruction of human embryos) against research advocates’ claims that the medical potential of embryonic cells is unparalleled by their adult counterparts.

The breakthrough has already proved capable of bridging divides. Professor Ian Wilmut (of Dolly, the cloned sheep, fame) has won kudos from conservative commentators for abandoning his plans to clone human beings and insisting that adult cell reprogramming “represents the future for stem cell research.”

Yet the ethical debates over stem cells—and their attendant policy disputes—are not going away. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, a sponsor of past bills that attempted to extend federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, has indicated his continued to commitment to that cause. James Thomson, the scientist who led the Wisconsin researchers, observed that embryonic research was necessary to make the adult cell reprogramming advance necessary. He too supports continued research on embryonic cells.

Given this reality, it is important for those committed to limited government and those opposed to embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds to remain united against any expansion of public funding, state (as in California) or federal (as Harkin proposes).

Those who do not share the view that nascent human life must always be legally protected can nonetheless see the point of the rhetorical question posed by John Stossel concerning one such proposal: “Why should people be forced to spend their tax dollars on something they believe is murder?”

Pro-life and Christian groups, meanwhile, who may advocate more vigorous governmental oversight of the stem cell research field, should at the same time agree with the analysis of congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul: “Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be funded. Scarce tax resources are allocated according to who has the most effective lobby, rather than on the basis of need or even likely success.”

To argue against government funding is not, as some assume, to encourage the atrophy of science. Private largesse provided tens of millions of dollars for stem cell research in California alone, the Washington Post reported last year, “dwarf[ing] annual National Institutes of Health spending” in the field.

Universities and for-profit companies, for different reasons, also pour large amounts of money into cell research. Research universities, including those at which the most recent advance took place, compete for the prestige that follows such accomplishments. (Yes, they also sometimes compete for government funding, but individual and foundation contributions are capable of filling that role.)

Biotech companies of necessity focus on those avenues of research that hold the most promise. Investors (usually) will not tolerate the pursuit of agendas tangential to the purpose of genuine medical advancement. When such promise is real, however, corporations attract dollars quickly.

Ample—arguably more—progress can be made in many areas of science and technology without the assistance of government money and the rules and regulations chained to it.

The broad appeal of these arguments was made clear earlier this month in New Jersey, where voters scotched the governor’s effort to pump $450 million of borrowed state funds into cell research.

It is hard to see what can be gained by government expenditure on stem cell science, other than providing another platform on which politicians can grandstand. It’s not a very attractive return on the investment.

Kevin Schmiesing is a research fellow at the Acton Institute and the author of Within the Market Strife: American Catholic Economic Thought.

Comments

Chad Workman:

I am pro choice, and I totally disagree with emmi's comment about putting other people before you. Stem Cell Research is the future of scientific advancement and now they can even take stem cells from the umbilical cord when a baby is born and use those stem cells for research. You say killing of other people is wrong and that you should put others before yourself, thats just like saying that all those soldiers over in iraq shouldn't be fighting and killing other people for your freedom to say that. Speaking of soldiers, wouldn't you want stem cell research to be passed so when a soldier comes back with a blown off limb, or burnt off skin that they can have new skin or a new limb, regrown for them thanks to stem cells so they can live a normal life after giving up a piece of themselves for this country and your freedom. In my opinion stem cell research should be pursue with every type of funding available because it leave the door wide open for medical advancements. All of the religious guru's and politicians out there are just afraid of what is unknown to them, here's a reality check, life is unknown to you also. We live and We die those are the only certainties in life. But why not use every available resource to make this life a more enjoyable one for those who get to live it? Stem cells should be pushed to the forefront of medical focus because they provide more promise than most other techniques and experiments, and I urge everyone out there to pursue your local government and politicans for push for funding of these stem cells so that some day we may find a cure for something that just may save your own life.

emmi:

i find it rather discusting to take a human baby and to be taking tests on them.
though it may find cures for things, you shouldnt be taking lives to gain others.
what ever happened to putting other people before you?
your killing just as meny people by finding somthing in the cell to cure somone else,
when a baby has way more life to live.
its discusting nand moraly wrong.
think of the lives you take,
everyone gets put on earth for a reason,
why should you take that away?

how can you not fund somethign that will change the lives of tons of people?

frankly, how can this be such an issue if abortion is allowed and that is really the killing of a child and absolutely nothing good come out of it. where as with embryonic stem cell research an embryo is something that could become a child and is not a human being yet, and it would save the lives of many other people. someone tell me how this makes sense, because i do not believe there is anyone who could persuade me .

we allow the killing of a human being for noreason , and will not allow the use of an embryo to save the lives of others?

j beall: beallmd@charter.net

I am pro-choice but I have had these same thoughts repeatedly. In fact, I believe a pro-choice conservative could have easily written this article. This argues against government intervention and control and the obvious push for embryonic stem cell research for other reasons than that they are absolutely necessary.

someone.....:

WOW!! that is cool!

David Hodge:

The politics of this debate are clear: there are no cures in the offing from stem cells. However, the act of protecting embryonic stem cells (very small human beings) strikes at the heart of legal homicide (abortion and euthanasia). Therefore, a failure to subsidize embryonic stem cell research due to moral opposition to the act itself will be a loss for the pro-abortionists. This could lead to a slippery slope of moral awakening and outrage, ultimately resulting in the curtailment of a woman's privelege to murder her offspring in utero. What a travesty that would be! How else can we explain the failure of pro-abortionists to publicize the fact that over one million 'choices' are made each year, resulting in a cumulative 40 million fewer unwanted children since 1973? With such a stunning record of success, abortionists should be greatly proud of their achievements. Is this worse than the corruption under Manasseh?

Phil Lundman: phil@lundman.com

When you follow the money for government funding of research or any other social cause it is often personal political not the scientific advancement that is being purchased. Planned Parenthood (what a misnomer!) and ACLU are two other obvious political beneficiaries. But then would Bush have carried Iowa without the billions promised to subsidize the farmers? Political campaigns cost nothing next to the taxpayer funded patronage offered to get elected.

Acton Commentary