Stem Cell Research After the Veto

Clark Wolf, Director of Bioethics

On July 19th, 2006, United States President George Bush exercised the presidential veto power, a first for him while in the White House. His veto returned H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, back to Congress, which had approved the act with strong bipartisan support. The senate vote was 63 to 37 in favor of the Act, a majority just barely too weak to override the President’s veto.

Embryonic stem cell research is controversial, but most credible polls show that the US public is strongly in favor of increased stem cell research and that there was considerable popular support for H.R. 810. Successive polls show that popular support for such research, and for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, has grown stronger over time. Because of this, there is reason to predict that eventually some successor to H.R. 810 will eventually pass through Congress with sufficient support to override a Presidential veto.

While support for such research may be growing, we may also predict that the controversy surrounding this research will continue. Some people regard embryonic stem cell research as abhorrent because it involves the destruction of a human embryo. Others urge that we have a moral obligation to pursue this research because embryonic stem cells offer a unique opportunity to develop therapies for horrible debilitating diseases. They urge that we have an obligation to those who might benefit from this research and that we violate this obligation if we place barriers in the way of scientists who are looking for treatments and cures.

What is the source of the controversy about this issue? In order to produce a new line of embryonic stem cells, it is necessary to destroy the embryo from which that line is developed. Supporters of stem cell research point out that embryos are regularly destroyed in fertility clinics around the nation. When couples suffer from infertility problems and seek to use in vitro fertilization methods to help them conceive a child, fertility clinics regularly harvest more than one ovum and produce multiple embryos for possible implantation. Because embryos can more reliably be preserved in cryogenic suspension than ova, clinics keep multiple embryos frozen, ready for implantation. When fertility treatments have been completed, unused embryos are either kept frozen or discarded. Our courts have ruled that they are the property of the donors.

It is important to understand the provisions of H.R. 810 as a potential compromise among people with different views about embryonic stem cell research and about the prospect of embryo destruction. The Act would have made a large collection of new human stem cell lines available for federally funded research but imposed significant restrictions on the circumstances under which these lines could be developed. First, the stem cell lines in question would have been derived from human embryos created for the purposes of fertility treatment, not from embryos created specifically for research. Second, the stem cell lines made available for research would only have come from embryos that would never be implanted and which would otherwise be discarded. Finally, the cell lines would only have come from donors who gave their informed consent that these materials be used for research purposes and who received no payment for their donation. It was hoped that these restrictions would be recognized as an ethically acceptable compromise between those concerned about the destruction of human embryos and those concerned to promote a promising area of scientific research.

Given President Bush’s previous remarks about stem cell research and the Administration’s policy that approved some previous stem cell lines for federally funded research, it was not obvious what the President would do. In 2001, the President set a policy that approved embryonic stem cell research on existing lines of cells — those cell lines already in existence in August of 2001. He commented, “the life and death decision has already been made” [1] in the case of these existing cell lines. One might have then surmised that the same “life and death” decision has already been made in the case of embryos that are presently destined for destruction, but President Bush did not see the question in that light. In his remarks, he wrote, “H.R. 810 would overturn my Administration's balanced policy on embryonic stem cell research. If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers, for the first time in our history, would be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos. Crossing this line,” wrote the President, “would be a grave mistake and would needlessly encourage a conflict between science and ethics that can only do damage to both and harm our nation as a whole.” [2]

Some have urged that President Bush’s act was an inappropriate imposition of his private moral values onto the public sphere. In a pluralistic society, it is wrong for people to force others to conform their lives to values they do not share. John Stuart Mill expressed this value forcefully. According to Mill, the only legitimate reason for limiting the liberty of free citizens in a pluralistic nation is to prevent harm to others. It is morally wrong, according to Mill, to use the coercive power of the state to impose one’s private values. Others have urged that Bush’s action was wrong because it is anti-majoritarian. This line of reasoning holds that an elected President should represent the views of his constituents instead of his personal moral values. While each of these views is relevant, neither is decisive. The point at issue in this debate is whether the destruction of an embryo constitutes a harm to someone — perhaps a harm to the person that embryo might otherwise have become. And we don’t want our elected officials simply to hold their finger to the wind of public opinion and vote whichever way it may blow. We elect our officials hoping that they will have good judgment, not just good pollsters.

Some embryonic stem cell lines are already available for federally funded research - those that were identified as already in existence in August of 2001, when the President put in place the existing restrictions. Unfortunately, the process used to develop these stem cell lines involved the use of mouse embryos. Consequently, all existing stem cell lines that are available for federally funded research are contaminated with mouse DNA. Since 2001, new methods for cell propagation have been developed. Newly developed stem cell lines do not have the same contamination problem, but because of the President’s policy, research on these lines cannot be supported with federal funds.

Adult stem cell lines - those developed from tissue samples taken from adults - also are available for publicly-funded research. It is sometimes urged that research on these cells should be an adequate alternative. But adult stem cells are substantially different from fetal stem cells. There is good reason to believe that research involving embryonic stem cells will lead to different therapies and different results. Embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated. Under appropriate circumstances, they can develop into any cell or organ in the human body. By contrast, adult stem cells are already “committed” to a specific function or to a smaller range of possible functions. For this reason, supporters urge that embryonic stem cells offer more promise for therapy and research.

Where can we go from here? I would like to propose a successor to H.R. 810 that might be more likely to represent a practical compromise among the different views and different values at play in the debate over embryonic stem cell research. The President’s concern, and the concern of many who opposed H.R. 810, was the destruction of embryos that might otherwise have been implanted and developed into a person. But after embryos have been kept frozen for a long period of time, they become ineligible for implantation. It can be argued that it would be morally wrong ever to implant these embryos because the risk to the prospective child is too great. But while these embryos can never be implanted, they might still be useful for research. A successor to H.R. 810 might further limit the class of stem cell lines eligible for federal funding to those developed from this even more restricted class of embryos that are destined for destruction. In the case of these embryos, as the President himself has put it, the “life and death decision” has already been made.

Would the more narrow act described above satisfy everyone? Certainly not. Some people object that even this proposal would involve the destruction of these embryos, using them as a mere means for the benefit of others. If it is wrong to destroy embryos, they argue, then even the prospect of great medical benefits cannot make it right. Life must be treated with respect.

Surely we can find some common ground here. Both advocates and opponents of this research should insist that life must be treated with respect. But we may differ in our judgments about what that means and what actions will best embody the respect that is owed. If these embryos cannot be implanted, they are destined for eventual destruction. It is reasonable to argue that one of the most respectful alternatives is to employ them in the research process.

Sources

1. George W. Bush, "Message to the House of Representatives."  News release issued by the Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, July 19, 2006.

2. Ibid

Thursday, September 28, Bioethics Program Lecture, co-sponsred by the Iowa Environmental Council
8:00 p.m., Gallery Room, Memorial Union, "Iowa's Ecological Footprint," William Rees, University of British Columbia's School of Community and Regional Planning. Information

Friday, September 29, Annual Conference of the Iowa Environmental Council
8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m., Des Moines Botanical Center. Early bird registration deadline: September 15. Information

Thursday, October 5, Center for Excellence in the Arts and Humanities, co-sponsored by Bioethics Program
8:00 p.m., Sun Room, Memorial Union "Space, Time, and Storytelling in the Making of an American Place," William Cronon, Frederick Jackson Turner and Vilas Research Professor of History, Geography, and Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Information

Wednesday, October 18, Animal Science Department
8:00 p.m., Sun Room, Memorial Union, "The Design Process, Autism and Animals," Temple Grandin, Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University. Information