A Debate That Won't Go Away

On this day after the Pennsylvania primary, there are few points of consensus among the candidates. But here's one example: John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all support embryonic stem cell research, and whoever becomes president will likely lift the current federal funding restrictions. After all the debates and political hubbub, that's about the only common denominator I'm capable of noting!

Regardless of political agreement, the debate over embryonic stem cell science and the role it may play in treating diseases like Parkinson's is unlikely to go away completely. And that's in part because of another public figure who was very much in the news this past week: the Pope. 

I grew up in the Catholic Church and still attend mass with some regularity. The Catholic Church, of course, remains unalterably opposed to embryonic stem cell science, which presents Parkinson's patients like me with an interesting dilemma. Do I pay more attention to my body or my faith? It's tempting to think that recent success creating stem cells by re-programming adult skin cells will get out us out of this quandary and circumvent the moral arguments. But most scientists say we should keep going with embryonic stem cell research, too, and that means the ethical dispute is not going to go away anytime soon. 

Here's a quick synopsis of how the debate evolved. In August of 2001, President Bush established federal funding guidelines for embryonic stem cell research: fund research that used existing stem cell lines; deny funding for research that would require utilizing any additional frozen embryos. He said his decision was based in part on a set of moral beliefs.

Those who opposed Bush's decision argued that the moral value of a potential cure trumped the value of a leftover fertility clinic embryo that would otherwise be discarded. The journalist Mike Kinsley, who happens to have Parkinson's, is of this school of thought. His point of view is that the Bush funding restrictions represent years of delay. "Every year that goes by, science opens new doors", he says, "And every year, as you get older and your symptoms perhaps get worse, doors get shut. Six years of delay in a field moving as fast as stem-cell research means a lot of people for whom doors may not open until it is time for them to shut."

It's a persuasive argument (and you'll see more of Mike Kinsley in our documentary). But here's another view. Charles Krauthammer is a journalist who contends with a spinal cord injury, another condition possibly benefiting from stem cell research. Krauthammer supports most embryonic stem cell research, but he sounds a more cautionary note. "'The slope is very slippery. Which is why, even though I disagreed with where the president drew the line -- I would have permitted the use of fertility-clinic embryos that are discarded and are going to die anyway -- I applauded his insistence that some line must be drawn, that human embryos are not nothing, and that societal values, not just the scientific imperative, should determine how they are treated." Krauthammer's views will also be included in our film.

And where do I come down in the end? My not very conclusive musings on this topic are viewable in a video you can watch here. I promise to have them more worked out by the time our film is finished! In the meantime, I'd really welcome hearing your views on the stem cell debate and how you've worked your way through the various arguments.