Who should decide on the future of stem cell research?
It has been over a year since President Obama lifted the bans that his predecessor placed on federal funding for stem cell research. At the time, scientific researchers praised his decision; the consensus in the scientific community is that embryonic stem cells will play a crucial role in future medical breakthroughs. But the politics have not been put to rest: significant restrictions on research still remain, and the use of embryonic stem cells still sparks the same ethical debates as ever. Continuing limitations and a lack of support for any major changes to the status quo are likely to hinder scientific progress in the near future. Yet despite scientists’ frustration with policymakers’ lack of scientific expertise and suspicion of research that may lead to life-saving cures, politicians have an important role to play in overseeing researchers and ensuring that ethical questions are not overlooked by an insular scientific community.
Meeting the Standards
Although partisan polarization is likely to prevent reform of stem cell policy in Congress, some experts have put faith in the president’s ability to issue executive orders. Andrew Siegel, a professor at the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University, told the HPR, “We really don’t need bipartisanship for this. As far as stem cells go, most of this is done by executive order. So I don’t think the current political atmosphere has much of an impact.”
But even after President Obama’s executive order lifted Bush-era bans, significant restrictions on stem cell research remain in place. Many argue, for instance, that the National Institute of Health’s review policy is too demanding. According to NIH guidelines, research may only be conducted on cells from approved stem cell lines that are part of the NIH’s Stem Cell Registry. It is illegal to create or destroy other human embryos for research. Furthermore, the NIH placed a freeze on research of stem cell lines that existed prior to Bush’s presidency, as many worried that these lines would not pass the NIH’s current standards.
A Defiant Status Quo
Stem cell researchers also face a mixed political climate at the state level. During the Bush years, eight states provided their own funding for research, while some right-leaning states are currently in the process of considering legislation to define embryos as people. Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, told the HPR, “[This issue] is highly important to a small but powerful subgroup in the Republican Party. All the controversial [social] issues—stem cells, abortion, cloning, same-sex marriage—are very important to them.”
Immediate changes in national legislation are unlikely. Siegel explained that “research involving destruction of embryos may be difficult, especially after the recent changes in abortion funding, but Obama most likely won’t be promoting this anyway, as there really isn’t much momentum for [embryo-destroying research].” For the time being, stem cell researchers can expect more of the status quo.
The Line Between Science and State
Although valuable stem cell research can sometimes get caught in bureaucratic red tape, the government plays an important role as an overseer of this research. Indeed, for an issue that involves so many ethical questions, it may be best to get input from people outside the scientific community who can see research from another angle. Sterner explained, “Stem cells, cloning, genetic enhancement—this all falls into an ethical category. People will have quite different views. We need to recognize that in a pluralistic society, at a political level, all views have to be acknowledged.” Congress and state legislatures provide an appropriate forum in which these viewpoints can be presented in a relatively civilized fashion.
Politicians, however, must rely on scientists to make informed decisions about funding. As Siegel argued, “It is critically important that policy be informed by good understanding of the science. You really need to understand what your funding is being used for.” Siegel is confident that federal policymakers will take this challenge seriously. “Congress will call on sources for expertise, and people will testify and work with congressional committees.”
Despite widespread yearning for a more supportive approach to stem-cell research at the federal level, the bioethical issues at the frontiers of science make research a legitimate question for legislators, review boards, and ethics committees. Progress on stem cell research may be slow in coming, but on an issue so controversial, incremental gains may be more expedient than radical policy changes which could provoke a grassroots backlash.
John Prince ‘13 is a Staff Writer.
Photo Credit: Flickr (amandabhslater)
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.