Stem Cell Politics Get Dirty
Authors: INDER M. VERMA
Journal: Molecular Therapy (2004)

In the May 2001 issue of Molecular Therapy, I wrote an editorial entitled “Stem Cell Research: Win, Win, Win by Keeping Politics Out,” which ended with a plea to not squander the opportunity to help millions of people with incurable diseases. In his speech to the nation in August 2001, President Bush proposed that henceforth only the existing human embryonic stem (ES) cell lines be used for federally funded research. His rationale was that since blastocysts can give rise to new life, destroying them to make additional cell lines would cross a “moral line.” Since that line had already been crossed for the existing cell lines, they could continue to be used. Human ES cell lines with clearly defined properties and attributes number only perhaps fifteen (see http://stemcells.nih.gov). with varying degrees of availability and ease of use. Doug Melton and colleagues at Harvard University have recently described the establishment of an additional fifteen well-characterized human ES cell lines, available to those laboratories that do not use federal funds to undertake stem cell research. Hopefully, these additional cell lines will eventually become part of the NIH repository and hence available to all researchers. President Bush also established the President's Council on Bioethics to advise him on bioethical issues that emerge as a consequence of advances in biology and medicine, such as the use of stem cells in research. Dr. Leon Kass, a professor at the University of Chicago who is widely published in the area of medical ethics, was appointed as Chairman. There were early concerns over the makeup of the council, because only three of the members were biomedical scientists. Furthermore, Chairman Kass had publicly spoken of the dangers of modern biomedical science, and was on record against research involving stem cells. After much deliberation, the council's final report failed to reach a consensus on the use of human stem cells in research and medicine, and included dissenting opinions from all three biomedical scientists—Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn (University of California San Francisco), Dr. Michael Gazzaniga (Dartmouth), and Dr. Janet Rowley (University of Chicago)—and a theologian and medical ethicist, William May. Dr. Blackburn wrote, “I am greatly concerned that reports of the council failed to rise to the standards of scientifically defensible and intellectually balanced documents, despite the dedicated attempts of myself and others on the council to make them so.” On a Friday afternoon in February, Dr. Blackburn received a call from the White House informing her that her services were no longer needed. True, the terms of all the members of the council had officially expired in January 2004, but only the terms of Dr. Blackburn and Mr. May failed to be renewed. The dismissal of Dr. Blackburn from the council has had a chilling effect on scientists working on stem cells. I know one prominent neural stem cell researcher who has refused to testify in front of the council out of fear that his comments could be manipulated to suit the administration's philosophy. The potential benefits of stem cells for human health are obvious, but will require a greater understanding of the basic principles of stem cell biology. There is a growing sense of cynicism among scientists that scientific advisory policies are being misused for political purposes. A letter signed by over sixty prominent scientists, including twenty Nobel Laureates states that “when scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with the political goals, the [Bush] administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters its decisions.” It would be a great pity if research in one of the most exciting areas of biology were restricted due not to failures of scientific knowledge, but a failure of politics.