Science, ethics, and morality at cross-purposes
Saturday, 23 June 2007
Syed Fattahul Alim
Philosophers and scientists of enlightenment freed human thought from the domination of papacy and the tyranny of bigotry born of religion. Since then science dominated human philosophy and thought and the course of his development path. Scientific revolution, though it first began in Europe, later crossed the Atlantic with the European settlers colonizing the new continent. With the dawn of twentieth century, America, the land of plenty, growingly started to feel its power as it invested its prosperity into the development of science and technology. The two world wars saw the military prowess of America drawing from its wealth and technological development. America was also the destination of immigrants from everywhere, not only due to its resources, but also for its openness and political liberalism. And openness and political liberalism is also a precondition for unhindered scientific and technological development. Scientists from different corners of the world made their home in America for better prospect of scientific research.
Now where does this great country that has long been championing the cause of freedom as well as advanced scientific research stand? Political conservatism has risen to such proportions that the extreme right has started to challenge established scientific theories that had paved the way for modernity itself. The new conservatism is not only challenging the established scientific truths, it is also using its political power to block the growth of science itself.
Stem cell research is one such issue against which US president is going to use his veto power to stop funding this research. There are certainly pros and cons of every new discovery at the frontiers of science and technology. The nuclear technology went through serious controversies with the invention of the atomic bomb. The awesome energy that the nuclear fission releases and the destructive power of the first fission bombs dropped on two Japanese cities brought humanity face to face with the ultimate question: is scientific progress going to devour human civilization itself? The debate raged for decades, but the advanced research on nuclear science did not stop in the West. Third world countries, on the other hand, were exhorted that they should not go for developing nuclear technology. The reason they showed was that the political systems of the newly emerging post-colonial nations may not handle such a sensitive matter responsibly. Ironically, such responsibility was not demonstrated by the most advanced nations of the West either. Hence started the era of monopoly over nuclear technology.
With the advancement of research in the biological sciences-biotechnology in particular-the world of science has arrived at a yet new frontier. Scientists have now acquired the knowledge to peer into the depth of life and even tinker with the fundamental building blocks of life. Research in stem cell is one such area. When a scientific issue encroach upon the most delicate parts of man's being, it is apt create serious controversy and brings the ethical and moral issues to the fore. The stem cell research is one for the reason that it has the potential to kill human embryos during the process of research and development. But such argument cannot also be used to stop the research itself. The advancement of medical research demands that certain genetically caused diseases like the Alzheimer's and Parkinson's syndrome.
The following reports show how the controversy is raging over stem cell research in a country that leads the world in scientific research.
This thorny scientific and moral quandary was the subject of his first nationally televised address, back in August 2001, when he imposed a ban on future federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The issue also triggered his first veto, as he scuttled a bill last summer that would have eased that ban. And while Congress usually gets the message on presidential vetoes - no means no - a nearly identical embryonic stem cell bill that has passed the Senate sailed through the House Thursday, setting up yet another opportunity for the President to veto a measure that is increasingly popular both with the public and its elected representatives.
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would allow federal funds, the financial lifeblood of scientists and laboratories, to flow to embryonic stem cell research. The bill's proponents claim that these by-products of in-vitro fertilization may be able to help cure a wide host of diseases, including juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's (recall the hubbub over the stem cell ads that aired during last year's Senate race in Missouri starring Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's). Those opposed, including many on the right, regard it as the destruction of early human life. Others see it as a potential gateway to human cloning. Still, polls suggest that more than half of Americans support such research, a fact that Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, says makes the President's intransigence on the issue even more exasperating.
"He's just being stubborn," says DeGette (a co-leader of the House passage of the bill) of Bush's expected veto. "There is a national consensus on this...The only thing that is preventing it from becoming law is the President." While statements like that can usually be attributed to legislative bravado, DeGette points out that the Senate is one vote short of a veto override and the House is only about 30 votes shy of the same goal, evidence that the bill is making headway. "In January of this year, we picked up 16 votes in the House, two of which were pro-life Democrats who switched from no to yes," she says. "If he wants, [Bush] can continue to refuse to support this, in which case it'll become an election issue in 2008."
Let us have a detour of the history of stem cell research in this connection.
In 1998, privately funded research led to the breakthrough discovery of hESC (Human Embryonic Stem Cells). This prompted the Clinton Administration to re-examine guidelines for federal funding of embryonic research. In 1999, the president's National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended that hESC harvested from embryos discarded after in vitro fertility treatments, but not from embryos created expressly for experimentation be eligible for federal funding. Even though embryos are always destroyed in the process of harvesting hESC, the Clinton Administration decided that it would be permissible under the Dickey Amendment to fund hESC research as long as such research did not itself directly cause the destruction of an embryo. Therefore, HHS issued its proposed regulation concerning hESC funding in 2001. Enactment of the new guidelines was delayed by the incoming Bush administration which decided to reconsider the issue.
President George W. Bush announced, on August 9, 2001 that federal funds, for the first time, would be made available for hESC research on currently existing stem cell lines; however, the Bush administration chose not to permit funding for research on hESC cell lines not currently in existence, thus limiting federal funding to research in which "the life-and-death decision has already been made". The Bush Administration's guidelines differ from the Clinton Administration guidelines which did not distinguish between currently existing and not-yet-existing hESC. Both the Bush and Clinton guidelines agree that the federal government should not fund hESC research that directly destroys embryos.
Neither Congress nor any administration has ever prohibited private funding of embryonic research. Also, public and private funding of adult stem cell research has no restriction whatsoever.
Congressional response
In April 2004, 206 members of Congress, including many moderate Republicans, signed a letter urging President Bush to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research beyond what Bush had already supported.
In May 2005, the House of Representatives voted 238-194 to loosen the limitations on federally funded embryonic stem-cell research - by allowing government-funded research on surplus frozen embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics to be used for stem cell research with the permission of donors - despite Bush's promise to veto if passed. On July 29, 2005, Senate Majority Leader William H. Frist (R-TN), announced that he too favoured loosening restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. On July 18, 2006, the Senate passed three different bills concerning stem cell research. The Senate passed the first bill, 63-37, which would have made it legal for the Federal government to spend Federal money on embryonic stem cell research that uses embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. On July 19, 2006 President Bush vetoed this bill. The second bill makes it illegal to create, grow, and abort foetuses for research purposes. The third bill would encourage research that would isolate pluripotent, i.e., embryonic-like, stem cells without the destruction of human embryos.
Meanwhile, the commission overlooking the scientific and technology development in New Jersey awarded about $10 million in state grants to fund support of human embryonic and adult stem-cell research Tuesday.
As part of New Jersey's effort to finance researchers to find cures for serious diseases, as well as promote scientific businesses, the Commission on Science and Technology approved 18 two-year grants to explore the possibilities of stem cells, which advocates say may lead to cures for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases and repair spinal cord tissue in paraplegics. The money awarded goes to research not covered by federal dollars, said the commission's acting executive director, Joshua Trojak.
Trojak said that along with promoting humanitarian benefits, the state also has an economic interest.
"We're bringing in the best researchers, which will bring in the best companies, which will bring in more money to the field. It could be an economic boost to the state," said Trojak.
The state also could see a cut from any medicines or products developed from the projects, Trojak said.
Though supporters say human embryonic stem cells hold a better chance for a breakthrough, they are controversial as opponents say the destruction of the cells is akin to killing a person.
In a word, the whole controversy over the stem cell research boils down to the ancient belief system based on inviolability of human life. In itself, such conservatism has nothing wrong in it. However, it becomes repugnant when politics takes the upper hand in the case of a purely scientific research.
Philosophers and scientists of enlightenment freed human thought from the domination of papacy and the tyranny of bigotry born of religion. Since then science dominated human philosophy and thought and the course of his development path. Scientific revolution, though it first began in Europe, later crossed the Atlantic with the European settlers colonizing the new continent. With the dawn of twentieth century, America, the land of plenty, growingly started to feel its power as it invested its prosperity into the development of science and technology. The two world wars saw the military prowess of America drawing from its wealth and technological development. America was also the destination of immigrants from everywhere, not only due to its resources, but also for its openness and political liberalism. And openness and political liberalism is also a precondition for unhindered scientific and technological development. Scientists from different corners of the world made their home in America for better prospect of scientific research.
Now where does this great country that has long been championing the cause of freedom as well as advanced scientific research stand? Political conservatism has risen to such proportions that the extreme right has started to challenge established scientific theories that had paved the way for modernity itself. The new conservatism is not only challenging the established scientific truths, it is also using its political power to block the growth of science itself.
Stem cell research is one such issue against which US president is going to use his veto power to stop funding this research. There are certainly pros and cons of every new discovery at the frontiers of science and technology. The nuclear technology went through serious controversies with the invention of the atomic bomb. The awesome energy that the nuclear fission releases and the destructive power of the first fission bombs dropped on two Japanese cities brought humanity face to face with the ultimate question: is scientific progress going to devour human civilization itself? The debate raged for decades, but the advanced research on nuclear science did not stop in the West. Third world countries, on the other hand, were exhorted that they should not go for developing nuclear technology. The reason they showed was that the political systems of the newly emerging post-colonial nations may not handle such a sensitive matter responsibly. Ironically, such responsibility was not demonstrated by the most advanced nations of the West either. Hence started the era of monopoly over nuclear technology.
With the advancement of research in the biological sciences-biotechnology in particular-the world of science has arrived at a yet new frontier. Scientists have now acquired the knowledge to peer into the depth of life and even tinker with the fundamental building blocks of life. Research in stem cell is one such area. When a scientific issue encroach upon the most delicate parts of man's being, it is apt create serious controversy and brings the ethical and moral issues to the fore. The stem cell research is one for the reason that it has the potential to kill human embryos during the process of research and development. But such argument cannot also be used to stop the research itself. The advancement of medical research demands that certain genetically caused diseases like the Alzheimer's and Parkinson's syndrome.
The following reports show how the controversy is raging over stem cell research in a country that leads the world in scientific research.
This thorny scientific and moral quandary was the subject of his first nationally televised address, back in August 2001, when he imposed a ban on future federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The issue also triggered his first veto, as he scuttled a bill last summer that would have eased that ban. And while Congress usually gets the message on presidential vetoes - no means no - a nearly identical embryonic stem cell bill that has passed the Senate sailed through the House Thursday, setting up yet another opportunity for the President to veto a measure that is increasingly popular both with the public and its elected representatives.
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would allow federal funds, the financial lifeblood of scientists and laboratories, to flow to embryonic stem cell research. The bill's proponents claim that these by-products of in-vitro fertilization may be able to help cure a wide host of diseases, including juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's (recall the hubbub over the stem cell ads that aired during last year's Senate race in Missouri starring Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's). Those opposed, including many on the right, regard it as the destruction of early human life. Others see it as a potential gateway to human cloning. Still, polls suggest that more than half of Americans support such research, a fact that Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, says makes the President's intransigence on the issue even more exasperating.
"He's just being stubborn," says DeGette (a co-leader of the House passage of the bill) of Bush's expected veto. "There is a national consensus on this...The only thing that is preventing it from becoming law is the President." While statements like that can usually be attributed to legislative bravado, DeGette points out that the Senate is one vote short of a veto override and the House is only about 30 votes shy of the same goal, evidence that the bill is making headway. "In January of this year, we picked up 16 votes in the House, two of which were pro-life Democrats who switched from no to yes," she says. "If he wants, [Bush] can continue to refuse to support this, in which case it'll become an election issue in 2008."
Let us have a detour of the history of stem cell research in this connection.
In 1998, privately funded research led to the breakthrough discovery of hESC (Human Embryonic Stem Cells). This prompted the Clinton Administration to re-examine guidelines for federal funding of embryonic research. In 1999, the president's National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended that hESC harvested from embryos discarded after in vitro fertility treatments, but not from embryos created expressly for experimentation be eligible for federal funding. Even though embryos are always destroyed in the process of harvesting hESC, the Clinton Administration decided that it would be permissible under the Dickey Amendment to fund hESC research as long as such research did not itself directly cause the destruction of an embryo. Therefore, HHS issued its proposed regulation concerning hESC funding in 2001. Enactment of the new guidelines was delayed by the incoming Bush administration which decided to reconsider the issue.
President George W. Bush announced, on August 9, 2001 that federal funds, for the first time, would be made available for hESC research on currently existing stem cell lines; however, the Bush administration chose not to permit funding for research on hESC cell lines not currently in existence, thus limiting federal funding to research in which "the life-and-death decision has already been made". The Bush Administration's guidelines differ from the Clinton Administration guidelines which did not distinguish between currently existing and not-yet-existing hESC. Both the Bush and Clinton guidelines agree that the federal government should not fund hESC research that directly destroys embryos.
Neither Congress nor any administration has ever prohibited private funding of embryonic research. Also, public and private funding of adult stem cell research has no restriction whatsoever.
Congressional response
In April 2004, 206 members of Congress, including many moderate Republicans, signed a letter urging President Bush to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research beyond what Bush had already supported.
In May 2005, the House of Representatives voted 238-194 to loosen the limitations on federally funded embryonic stem-cell research - by allowing government-funded research on surplus frozen embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics to be used for stem cell research with the permission of donors - despite Bush's promise to veto if passed. On July 29, 2005, Senate Majority Leader William H. Frist (R-TN), announced that he too favoured loosening restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. On July 18, 2006, the Senate passed three different bills concerning stem cell research. The Senate passed the first bill, 63-37, which would have made it legal for the Federal government to spend Federal money on embryonic stem cell research that uses embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. On July 19, 2006 President Bush vetoed this bill. The second bill makes it illegal to create, grow, and abort foetuses for research purposes. The third bill would encourage research that would isolate pluripotent, i.e., embryonic-like, stem cells without the destruction of human embryos.
Meanwhile, the commission overlooking the scientific and technology development in New Jersey awarded about $10 million in state grants to fund support of human embryonic and adult stem-cell research Tuesday.
As part of New Jersey's effort to finance researchers to find cures for serious diseases, as well as promote scientific businesses, the Commission on Science and Technology approved 18 two-year grants to explore the possibilities of stem cells, which advocates say may lead to cures for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases and repair spinal cord tissue in paraplegics. The money awarded goes to research not covered by federal dollars, said the commission's acting executive director, Joshua Trojak.
Trojak said that along with promoting humanitarian benefits, the state also has an economic interest.
"We're bringing in the best researchers, which will bring in the best companies, which will bring in more money to the field. It could be an economic boost to the state," said Trojak.
The state also could see a cut from any medicines or products developed from the projects, Trojak said.
Though supporters say human embryonic stem cells hold a better chance for a breakthrough, they are controversial as opponents say the destruction of the cells is akin to killing a person.
In a word, the whole controversy over the stem cell research boils down to the ancient belief system based on inviolability of human life. In itself, such conservatism has nothing wrong in it. However, it becomes repugnant when politics takes the upper hand in the case of a purely scientific research.