By Paul Tuns

Despite a speech that eloquently described the controversy over embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR), his recognition that the issue is a moral one and the reasoning for his ultimate decision, U.S. President George W. Bush allowed federal funding of research on existing stem-cell lines, a move many pro-life and religious leaders worry will open the door to full funding of more of such morally dubious research in the future.

Bush announced that scientists could use federal funds for research on approximately 60 existing stem cell lines. He prohibited government subsidies for the creation or destruction of additional embryos and announced $250 million for adult or somatic stem-cell research, which utilizes stem cells derived from ethical sources such as adult tissue (bone marrow, the brain, fat, skin) and umbilical cord blood and placenta.

Stem cells are primordial cells which in theory can be coaxed to grow into other kinds of cells that could be used to cure or ameliorate the symptoms of Alzheimer's, some forms of cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's and even transplants.

Some scientists believe embryonic stemcells are more promising for research because the pluripotent stem cells (present in the three-day-old embryo) are thought to be able to morph into any other cell. That, too, is the problem. Embryonic stem cells are not easily controlled. While stem cells harvested from embryos have never been clinically tested, earlier this year the New England Journal of Medicine reported that cells taken from aborted babies and implanted in the brains of Parkinson's patients grew "too well," producing so much of the chemical that controls movement that some patients suffered uncontrollable movements. Columbia University neurologist Paul Green told the NEJM, "They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, and their wrists flex and distend." The patients "writhe and twist, jerk their heads, fling their arms about. It was tragic, catastrophic, a real nightmare."

Meanwhile, adult stem cells (multipotent cells) are currently being used in treatment for cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus, cartilage defects, regenerate muscle tissue, and various other treatments. Furthermore, adult stem cells can be taken from those who require treatment which eliminates the risk of donor rejection.

Yet, some scientists continue to present the promise of ESCR as practically a given when, in fact, there is little to point to in terms of success.

Aside from the medical and scientific questions, there is the more important moral issue. As Eric Cohen and William Kristol noted in the Weekly Standard, what supporters of ESCR have failed to recognize, or care to acknowledge, is the "connection between the goal of relieving disease and suffering and the increasingly dehumanizing means of achieving it."

ESCR, whatever good might come of it in curing disease, is nothing less than fruit of the poisoned tree. It is wrong to derive good from deliberate harm to another. Canadian disability rights activist Mark Pickup said he could "not accept deliverance from MS at the expense of another life."

Despite being widely hailed as a compromise between the positions of what the media often calls the scientific community (as if it acted and spoke with one voice) and pro-life and religious leaders - the former wanting full federal funding of ESCR, the latter no funding on stem cells harvested from embryos - Bush allowed funding of ESCR. Ken Connor of the Family Research Council chastised the president: "Moral principles are not divisible." He said Bush "gave away the principle" of the inviolability of human life in favour of a new principle, that "it is permissible to kill so long as we intend to bring good from it."

Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, "The trade-off he announced is morally unacceptable." He said ESCR treats "some human lives as nothing more than objects to be manipulated and destroyed for research purposes."

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush wrote to the Catholic bishops to outline his position on ESCR: "Taxpayer funds should not underwrite research that involves the destruction of human embryos." It appears the existing stem cell lines provide Bush with a loophole to allow ESCR. Still, Connor said the president cannot wash "his hands of the blood," a reference to Pontius Pilate's defence that the crowd, not he, was responsible for the decision to condemn Jesus Christ.

Weeks before Bush's announcement, Republican leaders in Congress sent a letter to the president stating, "It is not pro-life to rely on an industry of death, even if the intention is to find cures to diseases."

Other organizations criticizing the president included the American Life League, Concerned Women for America and Human Life International.

Not all pro-life leaders condemned Bush's decision. Joining the chorus of applause from research activists such as Mary Tyler Moore and Michael J. Fox were pro-life organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee, Jerry Falwell and Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson.

It should come as no surprise that many ESCR advocates are applauding the decision. If Bush, as Connor said, gave away the principle, the door has been opened to further research. Bush tacitly accepted such research in an essay he wrote for the New York Times that appeared three days after his televised address when he insinuated that if ESCR produced the kinds of results its advocates claim, there could be liberalization of the rules.

Bush's Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, an ESCR advocate, told the Washington Post that research on the current stem cell lines would permit comparative research among embryonic, umbilical cord blood and mature stem cells, thus leaving room for expansion of ESCR if the government finds research in the near-term providing results that would make more ESCR attractive.

Prior to the August 9 announcement, there were worries that the so-called compromise the Bush administration would come up with would mirror the plans of Senator Bill Frist (R-Tenn), who proposed research be limited to the estimated 100,000 frozen human embryos unused by fertility clinics. Some scientists were calling for funding of cloned embryos for research purposes.

Soft pro-life politicians and former politicians such as Connie Mack of Florida and Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah resorted to hair splitting to justify using embryos for research. They suggested that the embryo is not a human being worth protecting until he is implanted in the womb. This definition would put at risk at least 100,000, and perhaps as many as one million, tiny human beings (information about the number of embryos created by in-vitro fertilization and stored in fertility clinics is unreliable). The argument for using these sources of stem cells hinges on the claim that the embryos are "leftover" and "would be destroyed anyway." (ESCR advocate and former actor Christopher Reeve told MSNBC that such embryos "are headed for the garbage anyway in these clinics.")

But that is patently false. Aside from the barbarity of referring to any human being as leftover and using casual references to its impending doom, the fact is such embryos need not be destroyed.

In July, two families, Marlene Strege, mother of two-year-old Hannah, and John and Lucinda Borden, parents of twins Luke and Mark, addressed a hearing of the House Government Reform Committee on the issue of ESCR. Hannah, Luke and Mark were adopted as frozen embryos.

Concerned Women for America director of communication Wendy Wright said, "It is a tragedy that these children would be considered disposable based only on their stage of development. Each of these children could have been killed for research purposes."

Strege told the committee she had not intended to divulge Hannah's origin except to their immediate family and close friends, but changed her mind amid the debate over ESCR. "The most difficult two days that my husband and I have endured involved watching Mrs. (Mary Tyler) Moore compare my daughter to a goldfish, and Senator (Tom) Harkin liken her to a dot on a piece of paper and refer to her as expendable."

The Family Research Council's Connor said the Bush announcement would "encourage members of Congress to advocate additional research and to kill additional embryos." Bush has sanctioned the principle of government funding of ESCR and it may be difficult to hold the line at the existing 60 stem cell lines.

Indeed, some members of Congress have already said they will introduce legislation allowing federal funding of ESCR using new colonies of stem cells, thus overriding the president's decision. ESCR proponents in Congress claim to have the support of more than 200 members of the House of Representatives and 60 senators. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) said he would introduce a more permissive ESCR bill when the Senate reconvenes in September.

The claims by some ESCR advocates that Bush's announcement would cause further human suffering is nonsense. Despite Bush's decision on federal funding of ESCR, such research will continue in private laboratories. For all the hoopla over federal funding, pro-lifers might be better to wonder why is there no discussion of prohibiting ESCR outright.

From the American Life League reaction to Bush's announcement: