By Kelly Robinson
Contributing Writer
In August 2001, they caught the attention of primetime audiences, but they were not much to look at really — a petri dish containing uneven shaped balls, clinging together like a vibrant red raspberry coated with dust.
However, these were not the sole factors that captured the attention of America. The “balls” were stem cells collected from a four-day-old human embryo.
To those suffering from an incurable disease such as Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, these cells looked like a cure for emotional and physical pain and a hope for the future. For pro-life activists, the cells appeared to be the beginning of a human life, deserving the rights of any other human. Specifically, such a specimen had the right not to be destroyed as a means to an end.
These two opposing views are the substance of the current embryo war, which is quickly becoming more volatile than the abortion battlefield. These embryos, whose cells have the potential to cure often-fatal diseases, invite a moral and theological debate similar to that at the heart of the abortion issue.
As science races forward, the tangle of fear and hope leaves our policy makers perplexed. In this time when no one seems to know how to regulate the new frontier of science, there is a blatant lack of policy makers with an education applicable to the heart of the issue — science.
On July 31, 2001, the House of Representatives passed HR 2505, banning both therapeutic and reproductive cloning. The bill was then passed to the Senate, where it has been sent to committee and rewritten 12 times. The varying versions of the bill have differed slightly in defining what constitutes “cloning.” Each time, the new definition of cloning has involved technical terms and scientific jargon. It is probable that terms such as “somatic cell nuclear transfer” and “pluripotent” mean little to the general public, so it is reasonable to expect policy makers (the majority with law degrees) to comprehend the minute differences between the terms used in each rewrite of the bill.
In August 2001, the White House released a stem cell fact sheet in an attempt to clarify the issue by educating members of the legislative bodies. The publication defined and explained the core concepts involved in the debate in 972 words. Although the pamphlet was beneficial, it falls tragically short of a college degree in biology.
With the federal government deadlocked, the individual states were left to take action. In September 2002, California endorsed therapeutic stem cell research with New Jersey, Massachusetts and New York poised to do the same. Judging from the lack of progress, the general consensus is that everyone is perplexed.
As we face the possibility of transforming the future of medical care and the definition of what constitutes human life, the people creating the guidelines are novices in this new territory. The facts paint a grim view of the future and action needs to be taken to change it.
The current composition of policy makers permits several factors to remain rooted in the debate, some of which are not relevant — specifically the ability to manipulate emotions. It is easy for people to forget that we are, in fact, dealing with the definition of human life. Although sympathy is a justifiable emotion, it should not be the deciding factor in the future of scientific research. These factors appear to have shifted the stem cell debate to a debate about everything but stem cells.
It is not difficult to see that power, money and prestige are deeply embedded in the debate as well. To relieve this complication and stimulate productive legislation, lawmakers with an understanding of the true aspects involved need to be at the center of the solution. The level of understanding cannot be generated from a packet or from testimony by experts; we need the experts to write and sponsor the bills.
This is not to say that we need radical scientists to support stem cell research and clone solely in the name of science. A delicate balance needs to be created, representing experts in several fields. The worst-case scenario is to proceed too rapidly without enough basic information. This fact is precisely why the actual people sponsoring and voting on the legislation need to be highly educated regarding the issues they are permitting or preventing.
Stem cells are truly astonishing. They bridge the gap between the fertilized egg that is our origin and the body that we become. They supply the cells that assemble our adult bodies and, as we age, replenish worn out, damaged and diseased tissues.
However, their full potential remains unknown. This makes them both enchanting and frightening. As the need for legislation regarding their use is continually delayed, it becomes readily apparent that the current composition of lawmakers was not created to address such an issue. What the legislative bodies need to stimulate an educated and healthy debate are those who are qualified and educated to discuss the issue.
As long as the experts remain on the periphery of the action, no satisfactory answer will be found.
November 13, 2003