Stem Cell Policy Moderation

As anticipated, President Obama has moved to liberalize Bush's policy on Federal Aid to embryonic stem cell research.  Here is how the New York Times describes Obama's policy:

Guidelines proposed by the National Institutes of Health to carry out an order made last month by President Obama would allow research with federal financing only on stem cells derived from surplus embryos at fertility clinics. The money would still be prohibited for stem cell lines created solely for research purposes and for embryos created through a technique known as therapeutic cloning.

Whether you think this is the right policy or not, it is clearly an exercise in moderation.  This is to say that it unites both extremes against the middle. 

Many scientists praised the new guidelines as an expected compromise.  “I think it’s a big step forward,” said Richard O. Hynes, a cancer researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “although there are aspects of stem cell research that will still be outside federal funding.”

Others called the proposed rules a sellout.  “I’m disappointed,” said Dr. Irving Weissman, the director of the Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine Institute at Stanford. Dr. Weissman accused the health institutes of “putting this ideological barrier in the way” of treating disease.

Abortion opponents predicted that the administration would soon embrace less restrictive stem cell policies.  “This is clearly part of an incremental strategy to desensitize the public to the concept of killing human embryos for research purposes,” said Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee.

Clearly,one end of the political spectrum would like to ban all embryonic stem cell research, while the other would like to allow the creation of embryos specifically to be harvested for new cell lines.  Obama's policy clearly incorporates the concerns of both sides.  He wants to give researchers more material to work with, but recognizes that there is something more than a little ghoulish in creating new, potentially viable human beings to be mere objects of medical research. 

One thing I find interesting in this is that Obama's position is, in principle the same as that of President Bush.  Bush's policy was also an exercise in moderation, allowing funding for research in existing stem cell lines (some of them obtained from discarded embryos), but closing the door to new lines from that source.  Of course the pro-lifers may be right.  Obama may be planning to open the door to embryo creation later on, once the present policy is accepted.  But we can't assume that. 

If new research into embryonic stem cells proves fruitful, I think it pretty clear that the door will be opened.  But right now there is no reason to expect this.  Embryonic stem cells have never shown much promise, as opposed to specially created adult cells. Still, it is interesting to note that Obama and Bush agree on principle, even if they disagree on the application of principles.

Comments

[Miranda Flint]

Whether or not this looks like an exercise in moderation depends on whether or not an embryo is a human being.

If it is, as I believe, then try substituting any other human being in its place
and see if the policy really looks moderate. Use, for example, Jews.

Your paragraph would read something like this:

Guidelines proposed by the National Institutes of Health to carry out an order made last month by President X would allow research with federal financing only on parts taken from surplus dead jews from concentration camps. The president still, however, prohibits federal funding of Jew killing, solely for research purposes.

If this were what was written, would we still praise the president for his display of moderation?

Not I. The problem here is not the money. That's minutia. The real problem is that people are being killed. The president ought to be worried about putting a stop to that, not about how much money to give the researchers.

[P. Chirry]

Whether it is an 'exercise in moderation' really doesn't matter. Once one side is extreme enough--and as the poster above has stated, using murdered humans for research purposes is indeed extreme--being 'moderate' is really no virtue at all.

[KB]

Thanks, Miranda.

I took no position on the justice of the policies in question. If it were up to me, I would shut the whole thing down. But there is a difference between creating embryos for research purposes and using those that have been created by fertility clinics but are never going to be implanted.

I think the proper analogy would be this: do you use research gathered by the Nazis using Jewish subjects in cruel experiments? I am uneasy about it, but I would not throw the data away if it can save lives. Bush's policy implicitly takes a similar view.

If we are going to see our way through these things, it might help to defuse the "If Bush then bad" principle that the press so frequently employs in reporting the issue.

[Miranda Flint]

Dr. Blanchard:

I had a feeling you would come up with that counter analogy.
But it isn't quite the same thing. In your scenario, the research
has already been done. In reality, it has not. So the question
is not whether or not you use the research of the Nazis, it's whether
or not it's moral to do research on the victims they have already killed.

There is one other difference. In your scenario, the Nazis have already done their torture. It is not ongoing. In the case of embryonic stem-cell research, embryos are still being thrown away. And if it turns out that embryonic stem cells do have some sort of medical benefit not given by adult stem-cells, embryos will have to be continually discarded in order for any knowledge gained from such research to be used.

[KB]

Miranda:

Are you sure you don't want to come back to Northern for, say, a philosophy minor? I can recommend the instructor.

I think you are dead spot on as regards the question. Doing Nazi experiments is pure evil. Using data from Nazi experiments, after the Third Reich had been killed dead, is unpleasant but perhaps permissible.

But that was the distinction I was trying to make. Creating embryos for purposes of stem cell harvesting looks to me like cannibalism. If President Obama is against that, he deserves support. As Lincoln said, when someone is right on a point, stand with him on that point.

Using cells from "discarded embryos" is a much more ambiguous matter. As I understand it, the embryos were created for parents who wanted to have children, but more are created than can be used. These stored embryos are as human as you or I were at a certain point in our time on earth, and in that respect they matter very much. The more I think about it, the more I dislike the practice of using them for research.

On the other hand, they aren't going to be implanted. It's not a matter of killing an unborn child who would otherwise be born (as in abortion). If the choice is between giving them a decent burial and harvesting stem cells, I would prefer the latter. But I don't think either choice represents a crime. If allowing their use for research purposes gets a promise that new human beings will not be created for the purpose of harvesting their cells, I am willing to make that compromise. I just hope it holds.

[Miranda Flint]

Hi Dr. Blanchard:

What a tempting proposition. If only Northern offered an advanced degree in Political Science!

I agree with much of what you are saying and I think your analogy is correct.
But I am less willing to make compromises - particularly on issues that are so
dear to me.

Before President Bush took office, I might have assumed that making compromises was a good way to make political progress. It makes sense to think that if you
deal moderately with someone, they will deal moderately with you.

But President Bush was very moderate. He worked with and consulted with Democrats on a regular basis. He gave them funding for many of their special programs. And as you've pointed out, he took a very moderate approach on stem cell research. Despite his moderate policies, Democrats absolutely hated Bush.
They worked against him as much as they could.

Therefore, I have little faith in compromise and little hope that, suddenly, those who were never pro-life before will respect the lives of the unborn.

Nevertheless, I am grateful for your voice of moderation.