Reactions to final NIH stem cell rules
Apart from opponents of all research that destroys embryos, nearly every public commentator seems satisfied by the new rules. For example, Jonathan Moreno of the Center for American Progress and University of Pennsylvania wrote:
The progressive approach of the new rules balances ethical considerations with support for groundbreaking science, a welcome reprieve for scientists, advocates, and patients who saw research opportunities contract under the eight years of the Bush administration's distorted policy....
We're pleased that the new guidelines are similar to those proposed in the Center for American Progress/Science Progress report, "A Life Sciences Crucible: Stem Cell Research and Innovation Done Responsibly and Ethically," [PDF] published in January.
Similar supportive statements came from the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology, George Daley, Alta Charo, Chris Mooney (added July 9), and Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Mike Castle (R-DE) (the authors of key Congressional stem cell research legislation).
When the draft guidelines were first published in April, many of these individuals, institutions, and their spokespeople grumbled, commented, or complained about the NIH's rejection of cloning-based stem cell research. Here is Susan Solomon of the New York Stem Cell Foundation now:
We are pleased that the NIH guidelines issued today provide a way in which funding may be considered for existing stem cell lines, on which current research is being done. President Barack Obama's leadership on this issue, which will impact generations to come, is to be applauded.
Yet here she is in April:
I am really, really startled. This seems to be a political calculus when what we want in this country is a scientific research calculus.
(See also her letter to the New York Times.)
In fact, so far I've only found two scientists--Kevin Eggan and Irv Weissman--who still are criticizing the NIH. And in a remarkably predictable step, the New York Times editorial board again highlights the exclusion of support for potential lines derived from cloning:
Fearing controversy, the N.I.H. decided to deny support to research using lines that might eventually be created in the laboratory by “therapeutic cloning” to match specific patients with specific diseases. Such cells could provide a valuable way to study the early stages of a disease and to derive stem cell implants that would not be rejected by a patient’s immune system.
Agency officials note, correctly, that no one has yet derived human embryonic stem cells through therapeutic cloning. And they contend that there is no strong public sentiment for moving beyond the use of surplus embryos that would otherwise be discarded.
The agency will need to reconsider those judgments as science and ethical thinking evolves. For now, the administration seems determined to follow Congressional and public opinion rather than lead it.
It is to the editorial board's credit that the piece notes the lack of progress in, and the lack of popular acceptance of, cloning-based stem cell research. But it is just as remarkable that the board assumes that "ethical thinking" inevitably "evolves" only in a more permissive direction.
Previously on Biopolitical Times: