|
Bush War on Medical Research Defeats Republican Senate
|
|||||
|
Sure, the biggest factor in the Republican loss of Congress was public discontent with the war in Iraq. Even so, Republicans would have held control of the Senate if the Bush administration were not waging a second war on major elements of modern medical research. Fact: The Bush administration has done almost everything in its power to limit advances in embryonic stem cell research, from President Bush’s first presidential address (limiting funding of research to a small number of contaminated cell lines) to his first (and to date only) veto of a bill that would have allowed some of the tens of thousands of left over fertilized eggs from IVF treatments to be used for research instead of being destroyed. This is probably the first time in modern history that the federal government has intentionally slowed potential medical progress. Fact: Republicans lost the Senate by one seat. Fact: Republican incumbent Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, a foe of stem cell research, lost to Senator-elect Claire McCaskill by less than 3 percent of the vote at the same time as a hotly contended ballot initiative supporting stem cell research in Missouri passed. Talent’s margin of defeat was smaller than the ballot initiative’s margin of victory. In other words, had President Bush not vetoed the stem cell bill a few weeks ago, Talent almost certainly would have been reelected, and the Senate would still be in Republican hands. In the subject in which I happen to have the strongest personal interest, Parkinson’s Disease research, three Boston-based research projects were presented by three of leading junior scientists in the field. One was German, one Italian and one Spanish (two of the three were women). Where were the American scientists? They cannot all be working at hedge funds. It seems that our federal anti-science policies are driving the best American researchers to other fields. All Republicans, including moderate Republicans, have paid a huge political price in this election for the Bush antipathy to science. Even the Republicans most opposed to stem cell research are worse off with Democrats now controlling the Senate and the procedural mechanisms for all Presidential appointees, including judges. This loss is likely to trickle over into potentially bad-for-business tax and regulatory policies, like delay in Sarbanes Oxley reform. An anti-science agenda is bad for science, bad for human health, bad for job creation and bad for business.
Most Popular Posts |
 |
 |
November 14th, 2006 at 9:15 am
I would hope with the election over we would see less histrionics on this issue and the application of more reason.
Fact: There was no federal funding of embryonic stem cell research prior to the Bush administration.
Fact: The minimum wage ballot initiatives probably had more to do with high Democrat turnout in key Senate races, including Missouri which had Proposition B. Raising the minimum wage received 1,583,947 votes while yes votes on the stem cell amendment totaled 1,077,584.
Fact: Talent withdrew support for S.658, a bill to limit research and ban all forms of human cloning, in February 2006. Asked about his position during the race:
Talent: I am a strong supporter of stem cell research. I’m strongly opposed to human cloning. In the Senate, I have already supported more than $2.2 billion for adult, umbilical and other types of stem cell research that does not involve the cloning or destruction of human embryos. AP, September 4, 2006.
Fact: Exit polls showed that the Virginia race turned on Allen’s support for the Iraq war. Salon, November 10, 2006.
Fact: “Embryonic stem cell” and “stem cell” are not interchangeable terms, although many supporters of the former seem to omit the “E” word with regularity.
November 14th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
prag·ma·tism [ prágmə tìzzəm ]
noun
Definition:
1. way of thinking about results: a straightforward practical way of thinking about things or dealing with problems, concerned with results rather than with theories and principles
Mr. Golub, your comment on pragmatism implies that we ought to be more concerned with results and less concerned with how we got there, which is an awfully scary sentiment.
Many Christians are pro-stem cell research and anti-embryonic stem cell research and cloning because it is their conviction that an embryo is a life. Cloning and embryonic stem-cell research are not illegal in this country. It’s just that many of us would prefer not to have the government use our tax dollars to conduct research on what we believe to be people. However pragmatic and useful it may be. Because that is quite a slippery slope.
November 15th, 2006 at 8:55 am
MisterX,
Thank you for some very thoughtful comments.
First of all, I completely agree that the issue is primarily what is referred to as “embryonic stem cell research”. At the same time, though, there is plenty of prohibited stem cell research that is not actually “embryonic stem cell research”, for example somatic cell nuclear transfer work, which would have great applicability for testing new drugs.
Second, I agree that there were many causes for the losses by Senators Talent and Allen. My political point is that if everything else stayed exactly the same (Iraq, scandals, etc.), it is clear to me that both Talent and Allen would have been reelected if President Bush had just not vetoed the bill to allow federal financing for research that uses left over fertility treatment fertilized eggs.
As to point two, said differently, the Bush veto cost Republicans control of the senate and will result in public policy losses much more significant to most republicans than the very narrow issue the veto dealt with. Like, for example, every judicial nomination for the next two years.
So my point is that Bush opposition to embryonic and related stem cell research has hurt pro life Republicans and anti-tax Republicans both.
November 15th, 2006 at 9:17 am
JasonC,
I admire people of true faith, and I respect your points. So please let me know how you feel about three specific scenarios:
1. This one is real life and about my family. My wife and I are blessed with four healthy children who are the result of successful IVF treatments. Through those treatments, we also have 5 fertilized eggs frozen at New York Hospital. We are not going to have more children ourselves, and we are not prepared to have someone else “adopt” our fertilized eggs. So we have two choice: (a) have these fertilized eggs used for research to try to develop cures for untreatable diseases like Parkinson’s (which my mother has and my grandfather died of) and diabetes, or (b) let them thaw out and be disgarded. I am truly curious which, in your opinion, is the more righteous choice.
2. This one is not personal to me, but it is also a real life choice, since the technology exists. Should a scientist be able to apply for a federal grant to (a) take an egg from a 25 year old woman with juvenile diabetes, (b) transplant the nucleus of one of her skin cells into her own egg, (c)grow that skin cell/egg combination into a cell culture in a petrie dish, and () test possible new drugs for juvenile diabetes on the resulting cell culture, all assuming the science is deemed to have merit?
3. Should a doctor be permitted to use existing laboratory space and equipment (part of which was paid for by previous federal grants) without any new federal funding to do the work described in item 2 above?
I sincerely want your point of view. Thanks.
November 15th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Lawrence,
I wonder if “pro-science” proponents of SCNT would be willing to craft regulations that allow for the research while preventing the technique’s use for reproductive cloning? I should think protections for women would be necessary as well given that harvesting caries health risks. Unfortunately, the ideologues who play politics with this research are unlikely to accept such a restriction. It would be great if I’m proven wrong on that.
I understood your political point quite well. My only objection is labeling it a “fact” rather than one man’s opinion. It may be clear to you why Talent and Allen loss, but your observation does not square with the numbers. The actual voters in Virginia cited the war overwhelmingly, and Prop B received many more votes (and inspired more union turnout) than the stem cell amendment. Six states approved minimum wage amendments, five of which had Senate races, and four of which were in-play. Democrats picked up three of the four (with Arizona as the only competitive seat held by Republicans).
I should concede that demagoging the issue and lying about Talent’s actual voting record did seem to have an effect on the Missouri race (if you ignore the numbers and listen to press reports). If one concedes that misrepresenting what the amendment said and what Talent’s actual views were impacted the Senate race, that’s not the same thing as saying that Bush’s “War on Medical Research” cost Republicans the Senate. And one minor quibble: “everything in his power” would not have included that Solomonic approach of funding research on existing stem cell lines.
In addition to the fact that Bush is the first president to authorize federal funding for embryonic stem cell research I have to note one more irony: the breakthrough that led to this debate came from privately funded research. To this day there is no prohibition on ESCR done with private funds, and no restrictions on public funding of adult stem cell research. Given that, it’s hard to believe that this doesn’t come down to money and some broader ideological point that liberals are trying to make.
MisterX
November 15th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Mike X,
Fair enough on fact versus opinion. I remain quite confident in the truth value of my statements but since they refer to a hypothetical situation that did not exist, some of my conclusions are opinion.
As to a potential compromise by banning reproductive cloning, that would work well. Every single proponent of SCNT I have ever met is prepared to accept extremely stringent prohibitions on reproductive cloning. For example, I am involved with the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, and as a matter of policy, they will not do any work associated with reproductive cloning. And you are quite right that it is a potential issue with egg donors.
I also agree that separate from those of us who are primarily interested in the science, there are idealogues on both sides who just view these issues as fuel.
Lastly, from my work with Harvard, it is clear to me that there are two separate problems with the limitations on federal funding. One is the NIH’s inability to fund certain new projects. But probably equally damaging is the chilling effect that research institutions face from the implicit (but not explicit) prohibition from face for using existing lab space and equipment, most or all of which at some time in the past was supported with federal dollars. The paperwork and inefficiency segregating space and equipment present huge deadweight burdens.
I am curious as to whether the labs which developed some of the predecessor work ever got any federal funding for their overhead, space or equipment. Do you know?
November 15th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Mr. Golub,
Thanks for your response and for your openness about your situation. I have tremendous respect for anyone who goes through the challenges of hoping for and endeavoring to build a family, as my wife and I have also endured the trials and tribulations of this process (and are in fact still in them). In fact, it is fair to say that we have come close to a place of needing to make clear decisions about what we believe about IVF, etc. So, let me preface all of this by saying that I am still exploring and articulating what I believe about this very sensitive topic.
I think the thing that is hardest for me about IVF is that in some senses it seems to me to be “playing God”. Although on the other hand I believe that God endows doctors with intelligence and creativity to discover new research and methods for healing and life-bringing. To me, anything that helps create life is probably good. As long as we as people don’t take it for granted and as long as we don’t create life to later end it, or to use it for some other purpose (ie, research).
In your case of the fertilized eggs: Amazing question. I’m not quite sure how to answer it. On the one hand, I see the concern that you might be “wasting” these eggs, when they could be used for research. On the other hand, doesn’t using them on research perpetuate this behavior? Won’t other couples fertilize a few extra (after all, they can always be used for research purposes if they don’t use them)? And would someone pay you for them? Because that has all sorts of ethical issues attached too. To me, the ideal scenario would be (and this may not be realistic as I don’t know the technological constraints) to fertilize only those eggs that can be implanted (or at least inserted into the uterus for attempted implantation).
My greatest concern is that we are talking here about researching on people. Nobody talks about it in those terms. And here the age-old metaphor comes up: many would say an acorn is not a tree. But by my way of thinking, an acorn becomes a tree. It is fundamentally, by it’s nature, a tree. As opposed to a blueprint of a house. A blueprint does not become a house (it is not fundamentally a house), but an acorn is fundamentally (by its nature, its genetic code) a budding tree!
I believe that we should not sacrifice our young, our babies, for the good of scientific discovery around disease. Because we are devaluing life. I realize this may not be a popular opinion, but it is my conviction. Many would tell me that my conviction is wrong, that a life in the womb is not yet supportable on its own, that it’s not really a life. But I beg to differ. Last year, my wife and I lost our first child at 6 ½ weeks (week 7 of her pregnancy). Many people would have told me that that little one wasn’t a baby yet. No nerve endings and no pain yet, couldn’t live outside of the womb on its own of course. But the aching in my soul as I looked at that little one on the ultrasound, saw its form, its head, its body, was very real. And I know that was a child, my child, the product of a miraculous coming together of a sperm and egg. And it is my prayer that we would value those little ones, even the youngest of them!
November 16th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Lawrence,
The first company to isolate and grow human embryonic stem cells was Geron Corporation in 1998. Geron was backed by Kleiner, Venrock, Domain, and Oxford Ventures among others, and went public in 1996. I can’t say with certainty that they never received federal money. However, given their backers, and the existing 1995 ban on federal funds for work on tissues derived from embryos, I tend to doubt it.
I know many proponents of federal funding have argued that the private sector simply can’t do the work on its own. In fact, the private sector created this potential research, not some government-funded researcher at a university.
MisterX