Recent scientific breakthroughs on stem-cell research are so promising, some of the right’s less-informed pundits, such as the WaPo’s Charles Krauthammer, have decided to take a victory lap.
A decade ago, [James] Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan’s Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.
Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.
Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush’s stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president — so vilified for a moral stance — been so thoroughly vindicated.
Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance.
As a rule, Krauthammer’s columns are wildly unpersuasive, and filled with enough nonsense to choke a horse, but today’s was unusually ridiculous, rehashing old claims that were debunked and discredited years ago.
Worse, he describes recent developments as the “Holy Grail,” and credits Bush for establishing a restrictive policy that produced the scientific breakthrough.
Because a lot of conservatives seem to agree with this, and because Krauthammer’s claptrap is widely syndicated, let’s unpack this just a bit.
First, Bush’s morally and scientifically incoherent approach didn’t produce the breakthrough; the White House policy delayed the progress. As James Thompson, whom Krauthammer praises, recently explained, “[T]he political controversy set the field back four or five years.”
Second, that delay is morally indefensible. As Michael Kinsley explained today, “Every year that goes by, science opens new doors, and every year, as you get older and your symptoms perhaps get worse, doors get shut. Six years of delay in a field moving as fast as stem-cell research means a lot of people for whom doors may not open until it is time for them to shut.”
Third, Krauthammer applauds the fact that human embryos will now be “left alone.” Unless Krauthammer is also prepared to ban in-vitro fertilization, which would show unusual intellectual consistency on his part, that’s clearly false.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, while the reported breakthroughs are encouraging, to insist that the issue is now settled is, at best, premature. Susan L. Solomon, the CEO of The New York Stem Cell Foundation, explained today that Krauthammer simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and “is not even close” to being right.
The new “induced pluripotentiary stem cells” (IPS for short) that scientists have now figured out how to make will be powerful tools for scientists studying the mechanisms of human diseases in their laboratories, and there is no doubt that this is an important scientific event. But these reprogrammed cells cannot be used to treat human patients in the clinic, because they were created using genes and retroviruses that can cause cancer in humans. Moreover, even if other, safe ways of producing these new IPS cells are found, no one yet knows the extent to which these new cells will behave like true human embryonic stem cells. Krauthammer and others who are seeking to justify current federal restrictions on embryonic stem cell research would like to think that IPS cells are exactly the same as embryonic stem cells, but they are not. We know now that human embryonic stem cell lines, both those that are recognized by the 2001 federal guidelines and those that have been developed since then, come in many different types and vary greatly from one to the other, most importantly in their ability to form differentiated cells (heart, pancreas, neurons) of a particular type that can be used for therapy. Will the new IPS cells be able to do this? We do not yet know. This new technique of developing stem cells is only a way station in a much longer journey, not a destination.
To suggest, as Krauthammer and others have, that we now have no need to work with stem cells created from embryos is to say that we can put aside the research that remains the most promising and important. It is a conclusion based on political, not scientific, considerations.
What do you suppose the chances are that the WaPo will run a correction detailing all of Krauthammer’s errors?