An elusive consensus on stem-cell research

July 5, 2005

I think it’s fair to say that Republicans are getting a little nervous about the stem-cell research bill pending in the Senate. GOP lawmakers seem all-too-aware that the public backs this bill, but Bush’s inflexibility makes it unlikely the legislation will become law. Some are looking ahead to the political consequences and wondering if kowtowing to far-right activists on this issue might be comparable to the Schiavo debacle in the spring.

Some Republicans grudgingly acknowledged that a presidential veto might not be received well by many voters. They compared such a scenario to the GOP’s decision to involve Congress in the Terri Schiavo matter earlier this year. Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman, was at the center of a bitter family struggle over whether her feeding tube should be removed. Despite Congress’ intervention, Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed and she eventually died.

“The party took a hit on the whole Schiavo incident, and this has the same potential,” said Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.).

Indeed, it does. The question then becomes what Republicans are prepared to do about it.

Up until now, it seemed as though they had about three options. One, they could pass the stem-cell research funding bill, wait for the inevitable veto, and hope the political fallout isn’t too severe. Two, they could pass it, wait for the veto, and try to override the veto, though the votes probably just aren’t there. Three, they could pass it and then lean on Bush to sign the bill, which seems hopeless.

But a new alternative seems to have arisen from the Republicans’ desperation. Option #4: pass a different bill.

A group of Republican Senators is working quietly on new embryonic stem-cell legislation intended to appease scientists while also avoiding a potentially politically damaging presidential veto…. The basis of the still-to-be drafted Senate bill would allow for federal funds to be used for embryonic stem-cell research, but would require that the embryo not be harmed during the process.

Several Republicans said Congress should be promoting a technique currently used during genetic testing and in vitro fertilization that allows for a stem cell to be taken from the embryo without destroying it. […]

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who is involved in the talks about the safe extraction of stem cells from embryos, said he thinks that this compromise bill would appease people on both sides of the debate.

“My position is, if there is a way to develop a stem cell without destroying an embryo, then that is where [the National Institutes of Health] should be making their investment, because the ethical and moral questions to me go away,” Isakson said.

That’s a pretty gigantic “if.” Right now, stem cells are removed from the inner cell mass of an embryo (it’s this mass that would ultimately becomes a fetus). But therein lies the rub: the embryo is necessarily destroyed once the stem cells are extracted.

Bush’s Council on Bioethics, which has rather severe credibility problems of its own, recently reported that it’s possible to extract stem cells without destroying an embryo. Has this worked in the lab? No. Has it even been tested anywhere? No. Bush’s Council on Bioethics simply believes that it’s possible — in theory.

But for Republicans on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, it’s good enough to get them out of a jam. They won’t offer funding for the real-life, reality-based, possibly life-saving stem-cell research that enjoys broad bi-partisan support across the country, but they will finance research of highly speculative, untested, and capricious science, which a politicized White House panel says is theoretically possible.

By throwing their support behind this measure, instead of the real legislation, when voters ask them before the next election if they backed stem-cell research, the Republicans can say, “Yes, I backed a ‘compromise measure’ that advances science while protecting life.” It’s not true, but they’ll hope voters won’t quibble over little things like facts.

“Has this worked in the lab? No. Has it even been tested anywhere? No. Bush’s Council on Bioethics simply believes that it’s possible — in theory.”

Um, that would not be a “theory”–it would be an “hypothesis.”

Let’s not provide another “talking point” to the crazy right, along the lines of “creationism” and “intelligent design” being “theories”–as they have not undergone significant testing and withstood that testing they are merely “hypotheses.”

  • They can add this one to their other wacky “science” ideas, like Star Wars missile defense, bunker buster nukes, psyops programs, “cures” for Social Security that just exacerbate the problem, and all of the other crap that wastes our money and supports the Rethug contributors. Talk about double speak. “If” indeed! Jerks.

  • Bubba,
    I’d be careful prettying up the Council on Bioethics’ recommendations using any of the terminology of science. Hypotheses logically derive from theories, which are (until rigorously tested) guesses or opinions–informed by logic and cognate empirical research–about a phenomenon and its properties. Theories describe and explain how concepts relevant to a phenonomenon relate to each other, while hypotheses are much more specific (usually stating how observable indicators, or measures, of theoretical concepts are expected to behave). I’ve oversimplified, but my point is that logic and evidence inform theories and hypotheses. They are not merely uninformed guesses.

    Based on what I’ve read, the Council on Bioethics has derived its conclusion from political ideology, not theory. Science recognizes that reality is not obligated to conform itself to how we want the world to be, while ideology does the opposite. Consequently, it should come as no surprise that ideologists will be hostile toward science and always attempt to subvert it. Their job is made easier because most people don’t really understand the principles of science.

  • …most people don’t really understand the principles of science.

    To wit: I just read an Associated Press piece this morning which began

    WASHINGTON – When Charles Darwin explained evolution, the process he obwserved was natural selection. It turns out inadvertent human selection also can cause species to evolve.

    Well, duh. I wonder if the author has ever read (or even seen) Darwin. Chapter 1 of “Origin of Species” is entitled “Variation Under Domestication”. The entire premise is that we already know how to breed new types of plants of animals and have done so since the dawn of our existence. His breathaking proposal was simply that nature works in much the same way.

  • I was at a beach in the Florida Panhandle for the holiday weekend and managed not to see a single shark. However, one of the locals was out in the surf casting a net to catch smaller fish/other swimming things and managed to snag what I best could call a “flying fish.” It had fins that served as wings and, more interestingly, had feet. My wife, a science teacher, and I looked upon it with interest but found the responses of those near us (locals form the panhandle area) much more interesting. One group in particular, these three middle-aged mothers, had previously expressed concern that one of their daughters was heading off to a top notch medical school (good news) but her mother was not overly happy as her daughter would be taught things that the mother “did not agree with” i.e. science, evolution, sexual reproduction and issues related to it, etc. (bad news). Upon seeing the fish all these folks (and most of the others around us) could say were one of two things, either “why would God create such a thing,” or “what purpose would that mutant serve.” Evolution never ever entered any of their thoughts (at least expressed thoughts). It was either “God created” or “oddity/mutant.”

  • bubba,

    Just what did those fools think that a “mutant” was, except the product of man-made toxins or Darwinian evolution?

    I love the idiots who can’t understand or accept something through the process of extrapolation, interpolation, and analysis, instead relying on a literal reading of (their version of) the Bible and/or the U.S. Constitution — if it ain’t there in print, in the exact words that reasoned interpretation asserts, then it CANNOT be true.

    I guess they never have use for duct tape and baling wire, as they always use O.E.M. parts to make their repairs!!

  • A.L.,

    It was like the thought process stopped there–it was a “mutant” and that was it. A one of a kind freak show. No thinking or rationalizing. These were also people who had a conversation about the replacement of a high school principal primarily because she was not tough on discipline–it was not the topic of the converstation that was discomforting, but the way they referred way too often to things being “evil” or “good” or an “evil person” or not an “evil person.” And as you can tell, they were not quiet–speaking way too loudly. We thought of moving down the beach after the “evil” and “not evil” discussion, but thankfully two of the three moved on as we got up to start rolling up our blanket.

  • Okay, suppose scientists extract whatever stem cells they need, and then the remaining tissue goes back into the cryogenic storage shed until such time as medical science figures out how to bring the snowflakes to maturity in a way that will let them turn into the precious little babies that we all know they really are. We could call it the don’t ask, don’t thaw policy.

  • I want to mention just one thing as a native Georgian. Isakson has been moderate on abortion (and related) issues, which is the one reason he was not a Senator sooner. Of course, when he came to the Senate that all changed what with the GOP only caring about party line voting. I metion this only because it is a distinct possibility that Isakson, a former moderate, is actually trying to come up with a moderate solution to the problem.

    • Comments are closed.