What a Bush Veto Would Mean for Stem Cells

(2 of 4)

Ever since Bush limited federal funding to a small number of existing stem-cell lines in August 2001, research advocates have been worried that the U.S. would lose its edge in the revolutionary field of regenerative medicine. The "presidential lines" were of limited value; there were not nearly as many as scientists initially thought would be available--more like 21 than 62, and they were old, in some cases damaged and most likely contaminated with the mouse feeder cells and calf serum used to grow them. Top U.S. scientists, many of whom depend on federal grants, decamped to labs in Europe or Singapore, where the government has made biotechnology a national priority. Some states have tried to fill the gap--California voted for a $3 billion bond initiative to fund stem-cell research. Advocates from Nancy Reagan to Michael J. Fox have pushed Congress to unleash more money and loosen the rules. Many Republicans as well as Democrats have been receptive, knowing that even socially conservative suburban voters tend to support the promise of research that they think might cure their parents' Alzheimer's or their children's diabetes. It fell to Senate majority leader Bill Frist, once a Bush ally on stem cells and a heart surgeon himself, to break with the President and build a compromise package with something for everyone to like. One bill increases funding to explore sources of stem cells other than embryos, such as umbilical-cord blood. Another proposal outlaws trade in tissue produced by "fetus farming," pregnancies that are aborted specifically to harvest the tissue for research. ("As far as I am aware," Frist admitted when he announced the bill, "this is not a method currently employed. But it is not out of the realm of possibility.") The part that inspired the promise of Bush's first veto was House Resolution 810, which would allow federal funding for research on any leftover embryos donated by fertility-clinic patients.

Leaving aside election-year sensitivities, supporters point to the moral logic of their position. Leftover embryos are routinely thrown away; surely there is no sin in scientists' deriving potentially lifesaving treatment from them first. Opponents respond that there is nothing to stop scientists from doing that. The issue is federal funding, which Bush believes should focus on research that does not require the destruction of embryos. But aren't those particular leftover embryos already doomed? "We don't take death-row inmates and use their organs either," says David Christensen, the conservative Family Research Council's director of congressional affairs. "We should not kill humans for body parts, at any stage of development."