Stem Cell Research--The Great Political Divide

The great divide in American politics right now is about stem cell research. And the decision about what to do next is up President George W. Bush. There are fervently held positions and no obvious bridge. Elizabeth Kaledin reports.

"Today we stand on the threshold of a great opportunity," says Senator Orrin Hatch (Republican, Utah). "Embryonic stem cell research may be the most important medical breakthrough of our time."

On the other side, US Representative Chris Smith (Republican, New Jersey) says, "I find it highly offensive to label human embryos as excess, or throwaways, or spare."

Issues of life and death were on the agenda this week in Washington. This time, it wasn't abortion but embryonic stem cell research that put medicine, religion, and politics on a collision course.

"There is no room for compromise on stem cell research. This is not a political issue. It's not a partisan issue. It's a medical issue, and it's a human issue," says US Representatvie Constance Morella (Republican, Maryland).

Researcher Dr. John Gearhart says, "The potential is to grow tissue--not organs, or not whole individuals. That's what this shouldn't be confused with . . . we're not growing people in our plates."

Gearhart is a biologist at Johns Hopkins University. He was one of the first scientists to successfully grow stem cells taken from human embryos.

"Now we have before us the possibility, the potentiality, that you can take cells, and if you need muscle, nerves, or blood cells, grow them in a dish, and transplant them into patients that have degenerative diseases that need these types of muscle, nerve, or blood cells," says Gearhart.

Embryonic stem cells are called embryonic because they come from embryos, which is also why they're called controversial.

When a sperm fertilizes an egg, the resulting embryo begins to divide into a cluster of cells. At about 4 days, the mass of cells begins to multiply. These are called the "stem" cells--they are blank slates, "all-purpose" cells from which every other type of cell in the body will grow. Within days they will specialize and change into brain cells, or heart cells, or pancreatic cells--any of the 220 different cell types that make up the human body.

What makes stems cells so valuable and so revolutionary is that unlike other cells they can make endless copies of themselves. They are the building blocks of the entire human body. Researchers have learned how to harvest these stem cells before they specialize and grow them by the millions in the lab.

In theory, scientists can develop an infinite supply of these blank-slate cells and use them to grow whatever type of cell that might needed to treat all kinds of illnesses: new brain cells for Alzheimer's patients, new heart cells for cardiac patients, new pancreatic cells to help diabetes sufferers.

The problem is, it's all still a theory. So far embryonic stem cells have only been tested in mice. A lot of researcmust still be done, and advocates say federal funding is essential. But 5 years ago the government banned federal funding for research that would harm human embryos. And to obtain the raw stem cells scientists need to study, human embryos must be destroyed.

"If in your heart of hearts you believe that it's the same kind of human being with the same moral worth, then even disposing of these embryos is murder," says Thomas Murray, a medical ethicist at the Hastings Center outside New York City. He serves on the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, appointed by former president Clinton, to make recommendations about stem cell research.

What is the whole ethical dilemma here?

"Well, there are many. The core one here is . . . is the public disagreement about the moral status, the moral standing, and significance of the 5-day-old human embryo," says Murray.

The human embryos in stem cell research come from fertility clinics. One embryo can be the source of millins of stem cells. In America today, there are almost 200,000 embryos stored in freezers, many of which are routinely discarded, or destroyed.

"My sense is that most Americans believe that a 5-day-old embryo the size of a period at the end of a sentence is something less than and different from a child, certainly, and probably even a midterm fetus," says Murray. "But nor do I think most Americans believe that it's nothing."

"My name is Molly Singer and this is my sister Jackie. Eight years ago I was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes, and ever since I worry that my sister will get the disease," says 12-year-old Molly Singer. Last week twins Molly and Jackie Singer came to Washington to add their voices to those trying to convince the Bush Administration to allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Jackie Singer is their mother.

"It seems like the most moral thing we can do, since these embryos will never know life, is to allow them the opportunity to save lives," says the elder Jackie Singer.

John Borden and his wife Lucinda and their twin sons were also in Washington last week, on the other side of the debate.

"I would like to ask the members of the committee, which one of my children would you kill? Which one would you choose to take?" says John Borden.

"We have come forward today," says Lucinda Borden, "to plead with you not to approve funding for research that will kill frozen embryos such as Mark and Luke were roughly 1 1/2 years ago."

In 1999 the Bordens arranged to "adopt" frozen embryos that another couple had stored in a fertility clinic. They say their sons are living proof that using any embryos for medical research is tantamount to murder.

Every human being, no matter how small, deserves to live," says New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith. He is a staunch opponent of abortion and believes the argument against embryonic research is fundamentally the same.

"The more you dehumanize the unborn, the preborn hman embryos, the more easy it is . . . either for research or destruction purposes, to continue that wholesale slaughter that is occurring in America," says Smith.

But Senator Orrin Hatch says, "The reality is that each year thousands of embryos are routinely destroyed. Why shouldn't these embryos slated for destruction be used for the good of mankind?"

But this is a debate where the stakes are so high that political lines blur. Conservative Senator Hatch, for instance, opposes abortion, but he's in favor of embryonic stem cell research.

"This research holds out promise for improving or extending life for more than 100 million Americans suffering from a variety of diseases, including heart disease, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, ALS [amyotrophic lateral sclerosis--Lou Gehrig's disease], multiple sclerosis, cancer, and diabetes," said Hatch at a hearing.

Opponents argue that the use of embryos for research is not only wrong, it is unnecessary--that there is another source of stem cells scientists can use that they say is just as promising.

"Thankfully we have this spectacular alternative, known as adult stem cells, that offers great promise, and great hope," says Smith.

Adult stem cells. To understand how they work, look again at those blank-slate cells in the embryo. As the blank-slate cells grow, they begin to differentiate: Some become brain cells, others heart cells, others pancreatic cells, and so on. It's believed that some of these adult stem cells have the same ability to replicate as their embryonic cousins.

But they are not blank slates. They are brain cells, or heart cells, or pancreatic cells--maybe with the same ability to cure.

Stem cell research is still in its infancy and no one can say for sure if adult stem cells hold the same promise as those taken from an embryo.

Even Dr. Neil Thiese of New York University Hospital, one the nation's leading adult stem cell researchers, isn't sure. He says we can'learn about adult stem cells without knowing more about how embryonic stem cells work.

"Even if adult stem cells have all the potential we want them to have for therapeutic purposes, I don't think we'll be able to get to those therapeutic uses unless we also study embryonic stem cells simultaneously. They are not two separate fields. It's not an either or situation," says Thiese.

The fact is, private funding for stem cell research will continue, on a smaller scale, no matter what the government does. But for Molly Singer and her family, time is of the essence

"I don't want her to go blind. I don't want her to have kidney failure. I don't want her to have a heart attack or a stroke. I want Molly to live," says her mother Jackie.

President Bush says, "This is way beyond politics. This is an issue that speaks to morality and science and the juxtaposition of the both."

At a press conference in London on Thursday, President Bush made it clear he is well aware of how imporant this issue is, but gave no indication what his decision will be.

"The American people deserve a president who will listen to people and will make a serious, thoughtful judgment on this complex issue and that's precisely how I'm gonna handle it. The debate is passionate, and the stakes are high," Bush says, "as the nation faces a brave new world of scientific possibilities, struggling to bridge the great divide between the right to life and the right to live."
©MMII CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed