Dear Colleague:

 

I\'m writing today to direct your attention to the article below, which
explains how some have politicized the ethical question of embryonic
stem cell research (ESCR). Even the author of this article, herself a
supporter of ESCR, recognizes that honest discussion has been clouded by
those who would rather mischaracterize the legal status of and federal
funding for ESCR than engage in meaningful debate about the issue. As
the author correctly notes, ESCR is not currently restricted in our
nation. Moreover, the current administration is the first to have
actually provided federal funding for the research. As representatives
of the American people, we must discuss the facts and stop resorting to
misleading slogans and catchphrases.

 

Sincerely,

/s Steve King

Member of Congress

** **

** **

**Stem Cell Stumping**

By Anne Applebaum

 

Wednesday, August 4, 2004; Page A19

 

\"We also \-- we also need to lift the ban on stem cell research \--
(cheers, applause) and find cures that will help millions of Americans.
(applause continues)\"

 

*Applause continues.* That\'s a direct quote from the transcript of the
speech that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton gave at the Democratic
convention last week. Unexpectedly, the applause continued all week
long, for anyone who spoke about stem cell research. Sen. John Kerry got
some for asking, \"What if we have a president who believes in science,
so we can unleash the wonders of discovery \-- like stem cell research
\-- and treat illness for millions of lives?\" Ron Reagan, son of the
late president, who mistakenly imagined he was being cheered merely for
what he said rather than who his father was, hit an even higher
rhetorical note: \"Sound like magic? Welcome to the future of
medicine.\"

 

Listening to all these speeches, you might have come away with the
impression that stem cell research is illegal in this country, and that
if our recalcitrant, medieval, anti-science fundamentalist president
would only \"lift the ban,\" or lose the election, there would be
\"magic\" cures for old people with Alzheimer\'s and children with
diabetes. By coincidence, the quadriplegic actor Christopher Reeve told
CNN last weekend that he would walk again \"in the next three to five
years\" with the help of stem cell research. He spoke of the obstacles
to that goal as political rather than merely medical. The message:
President Bush has grounded Superman.

 

As it happens, I do think we should liberalize our national policy on
stem cell research. But before we do that, it\'s important to be pretty
clear about what that national policy actually is, and how it got to be
that way. Stem cell research is not, in fact, either illegal or
unfunded: The federal budget in 2003 included \$24.8 million for human
embryonic stem cell research \-- up from zero in 2000. Private funding
of stem cell research, which is unlimited, runs into the tens and
possibly hundreds of millions of dollars. The current, admittedly
hairsplitting policy came about because Congress in 1995 passed a ban on
federal (but not private) funding for any form of research that involved
the destruction of human embryos, because it is a form of research many
American voters dislike and don\'t want to pay for. After some important
(privately funded) breakthroughs, the Clinton administration began
looking for legal ways to bypass the ban, but never got around to paying
for any actual research.

 

The Bush administration thought about it, too, and came up with a
solution: Federal funding could be used for research on stem cell lines
already in existence. In practice, this means scientists who get their
funding from the government are restricted in which materials they can
use. Although this compromise will soon become a real obstacle to
research, for the moment the irritant is largely philosophical. \"What
hampers people is the concept that there is a lack of freedom to
operate,\" one scientist told me.

 

If all of that sounds a little long-winded and complicated, that\'s
because it is. The question now is whether we want, as a nation, to
continue to have long-winded and complicated debates about complicated
issues, or whether we want to resort to slogans such as \"lift the ban\"
and \"unleash the wonders of discovery.\" The question is also whether
Americans and their political representatives are allowed to think twice
about the implications of brand-new science \-- a prerequisite for
public support, one would think \-- or whether the patients\' groups and
pollsters behind last week\'s rhetoric always get the last word.

 

At some point we also need to make some distinction between science and
\"magic.\" It is true that funneling more money into biological research
will produce more breakthroughs and more cures. It is also true that
even with unlimited funding, Reeve might never walk again. This is
research, not abracadabra. Talk of \"magic\" doesn\'t do much to reverse
widespread scientific illiteracy either, which remains a far greater
obstacle to scientific progress than the president.

 

But simplifying the argument must work as a political tactic or the
Kerry campaign wouldn\'t have let so many people do it. Perhaps it\'s
because \"stem cell research\" makes a more attractive cultural buzzword
than \"abortion,\" and a more unifying cultural issue than gay marriage.
Perhaps it\'s because it is so easy to use personal anecdotes \-- Ron
Reagan spoke of a 13-year-old girl who decorates her insulin pump with
rhinestones \-- to turn a dry scientific subject into an emotional one.
Or perhaps it\'s because the discussion taps into an old and familiar
metaphor \-- Galileo vs. the pope, Voltaire vs. the clerics, progress
vs. religion \-- which helps people feel more comfortable about choosing
sides. Call me antediluvian, but I\'d still like it better if debates
about science began with facts.

 

© 2004 The Washington Post Company