10/21/04 - Requiem for a Reeve: The Stem Cell Debate by jerryman814

[jerryman814]

In a presidential race that has focused on flip flops, bio-terrorism and scurvy media, many of the primordial fixtures of American society, our empirical freedoms, have had their foundations rocked. The Patriot Act is essentially voiding the fourth amendment of the Constitution. The American media waves are being dominated by talking heads that seem to be trying to recruit people into political parties rather than reporting news. The hottest jobs in the country are actually based in Calcutta, India. As leader of the country, President Bush deserves the brunt of the blame. The failure of his presidency has to do, primarily, with his mishandling of the country. However, an important aspect of his unsuccessful tenure in office that demands a closer look is the apparent reliance on his “compassionate conservatism” to lead our nation. Compassionate because of his keen sense of humanity that God has infused in him. Conservatism because of the old-fashioned American values which he often acknowledges. When dealing with important conflicts, however, he shows that he is the complete opposite – out of touch with the American people and driven by an impaired faith-based mindset. One issue showcasing his oblivious persona is stem cell research – a topic that has finally begun its ascension into the public view.

With the death of one of its main advocates, Christopher Reeve, stem cell research has come into full view of America. On one side of the dilemma, the president, many of his republican constituents and much of the religious world believe that the use of stem cell research comes too close to playing God. On the other side of the argument, John Kerry, his democratic constituents, and most medical researchers believe that stem cell research is a progressive form of medicine that will cure, if not eliminate, many terminal diseases. The purpose of much of my argument is to show that the political and moral impediments placed in the path of progressive stem-cell research by the president and his followers have proven to be hypocritical and misleading.

The political restrictions instilled on stem cell research began on August 9, 2001, when President Bush officially handcuffed the research abilities of scientists. The legislation allotted over $24.8 million to the National Institutes of Health. To the chagrin of much of the advocates of stem cell research, Bush flaunted his apparent thirst for progressive medicine by repeatedly pointing out that he was the first president to allocate money for it. Many believed that this was just a feeble attempt to appease the advocates of stem cells while not straying from his republican ideologies. In the bill, available stem cell lines were restricted to only the 60 that were in existence at the time. However, supporters of his plan point out that with 60 lines, there was an ample supply of stem cells to work with. In fact, over 3,500 cells are still awaiting deployment to facilities. With this surplus of specimens, research could be sustained for years. Also, with the allotted money in the bill, an in-house laboratory was built, a Stem Cell Task Force was created, grants were made to researchers and institutions, three new multidisciplinary “centers of excellence” were planned, and development of a stem cell bank to recognize usable stem cells was initiated (Kass A35). On the surface, the bill signed by he president seemed like a sound compromise between both sides of the issue.

The awful truth surfaced, however, after a thorough assessment of the stem cell legislation. As information about these available stem cell lines began to manifest itself, it was clear that the sympathetic nature of Bush to all sides of the argument was a façade. Of the 60 lines that were permitted in the research, only 11 of them were actually found to be usable and accessible. Robert Lanza from Advanced Cell Technology characterized the stem cells line by stating that, “Some are available, some don’t exist and even those that you can get are expensive and frequently not very good quality” (qtd. in Sample 3). In addition, the lines were found to not even be usable in clinical trials, essentially ruling out any human experiments. The purported beneficial stem cells in Bush’s legislation all turned out to be inadequate.

President Bush may have been the first president to allocate money for stem cell research, but, “in fact, the Clinton administration approved stem cell research in August of 2000. If Bush had done nothing, the research would have continued without restriction” (Zuckman 25). The scientists could have enjoyed successes such as the ones in Israel where there is no ban on stem cell research. In fact, “scientists there already have demonstrated the ability of stem cells to become new heart tissue and are doing cutting-edge work in computational neuroscience, the study of how the brain and nervous system work” (Jewish Telegraphic Agency). We can all give thanks to the president’s “compassion” for passing up the opportunity to lead the world in this research. Instead, we have countries in the middle of bloody culture clashes taking bigger strides in finding cures than America – the richest country in the world.

The $24.8 million that was given to stem cell research may seem like a lot of money, but if there are no stem cells to research with, what good is any amount of money? Michael J. Fox, a strong advocate of stem cell research, concisely summarized this situation with, “It was like he gave us a car with no gas” (qtd. in Milbank and Kurtz A06). How can you test hypotheses and find cures if you don’t have ample enough stem cells? Without the stem cells to fuel the research, studies were going nowhere.

To begin a discussion about the moral issues of stem cell research, we should begin with questions related to it. As an advocate of the death penalty and the commander-in-chief of a war involving thousands of deaths caused by his policies, what gives this president, the “compassionate conservative”, the audacity to demand medical experts be wary of “American” moral views? This question delves deep into the hypocritical atmosphere that surrounds the president. The dichotomy of his nature, consisting of pro-death and pro-life policies, raises more questions of the ability of the president to make decisions. How compassionate is he? As governor of Texas, Bush fervently defended the death penalty and presided over the most executions in Texas state history (Robison 2). How conservative is he? As president, he has spent over $140 billion on the war in Iraq and has been quoted as saying that the war “has no foreseeable end”. He has also sent over 1,100 American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis to their deaths.

What kind of pro-life policies is he actually advocating by spending over $140 billion on a war that “has no end in sight”, but a miniscule fraction of that on potentially groundbreaking medical research that has already shown progress in other areas of the world? This question deals with what ‘life’ means. To those who are for Bush’s continued restrictions on stem cell research, millions of Americans will continue to live disease-shortened lives filled with frequent hospital visits and treatments. Millions of people will be forced to go through their lives like Christopher Reeve - bound to a wheelchair. The pain and anguish of not being able to walk and live a normal life should be lessened, but by outsourcing our money to insignificant overseas squabbling, precious money is being thrown away rather than being spent on medical research. Even a small portion of the cost of the war could sustain stem cell studies for a long period of time.

One final facet of the morality of stem cell research is seeing who is embraced by the “compassionate” side of the president. As Christopher Reeve poignantly put it, “which is the group he really listens to in making his decisions about embryonic stem cell research?” (qtd. in Williamson B1) Mr. Reeve brings up a brilliant point where he points out that the president is basing his political actions toward stem cell research on his religious beliefs. If the president was a Jehovah’s Witness, would he abolish blood transfusions as they are condemned by their religion? If polio was a controversial issue, would he put restrictions on that research also? It is evident that it is more convenient to be one of Bush’s followers in terms of what kind of treatment you get. The “compassionate” nature of the president only goes as far as he wants it to go.

Christopher Reeve was undoubtedly an important entity in the fight for unrestricted stem cell research. His efforts in public forums and on the Senate floor helped to bring enormous support to this incipient medical field. John Kerry and 58 other senators sponsored a petition to increase funds for studies. In this year’s election, California has put on the ballot Proposition 71 which will inherently make California the world center of stem cell research (Broder and Pollack A1). Nationwide polls have shown that over 60% of the country supports an increase in funding for studies (Milbank and Kurtz A06). If you put all of these factors together, you get a picture of a uniform desire for advanced research with stem cells. There needs to be a concerted effort by supporters of this medical breakthrough in order to make sure Christopher Reeve’s message does not go unheard. However, we have a president in office who believes that other things – pro-death policies – are more important. On Election Day, it is up to the voters to decide.





WORKS CITED
Broder, John M. and Andrew Pollack. “Californians to Vote on Stem Cell Research Funds.” The
New York Times 20 Sept. 2004: A1.

“After trip to Israel, Christopher Reeve said Jewish state was a ‘super’ place.” Jewish
Telegraphic Agency 13 Oct. 2004: N/A.

Zuckman, Jill. “Kerry blasts Bush for limits on stem cell research; White House counters it has
allowed funding.” Chicago Tribune 5 Oct. 2004: 25.

“STEM CELL HALF-STEP.” Editorial. Boston Globe 10 Aug. 2001: A22.

Milbank, Dana and Howard Kurtz. “Kerry Calls Stem Cell Policy Unscientific and Political.”
The Washington Post 5 Oct. 2004: A06.

Kass, Leon R. “Playing Politics With the Sick.” The Washington Post 8 Oct. 2004: A35.

Williamson, Dianne. “Super man in real life as in movies; Reeve’s death may spur more stem
cell research.” Telegram & Gazette 12 Oct. 2004: B1.

Sample, Ian. “Life: This week: The science behind the news: What’s wrong with US
policy on stem cell research?” The Guardian. 14, Oct. 2004: 3.

Robison, Clay. “Of death penalty, politics, presidents.” Houston Chronicle 18 Aug. 2002: 2.