Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

Veto puts stem-cell research at forefront again
By Kelley Fong
The Stanford Daily (Stanford)
07/28/2006

(U-WIRE) STANFORD, Calif. — With President Bush's veto of a bill, July 19, that would have expanded federal funding for stem-cell research, the stem-cell debate has again risen with Stanford at the center as a research institution.

The decision, Bush's first veto as president, came only several days after the Stanford School of Medicine announced 16 scholars chosen to receive state-funded stem-cell research training.

Neurology Professor William Hurlbut, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics since 2002, was at the White House when President Bush announced the veto. According to Hurlbut, the veto was "predicted, and consistent with the president's campaign promise and longstanding policy."

Most scientists have criticized the administration's opposition to the research area.

"I think the veto is very ill-advised and certainly a tremendous handicap to American scientists who want to work in this field," said Paul Berg, Nobel laureate and Stanford professor emeritus in biochemistry.

Berg emphasized that tens of thousands of embryos that are discarded weekly. "In many cases they're just tossed down the drain," he said.

"If they're going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them in a way that could possibly create benefits? The president just insists on using his veto power," Berg added.

Christopher Scott of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics said that he also opposed the veto and supported the full funding of embryonic stem-cell research. Scott serves as executive director for Stanford's Program for Stem Cells in Society (PSCS).

With the veto, said Scott, "we're basically at the status quo in terms of where we're going to get funding to push our research agenda forward."

President of Stanford Students for Life (SSFL) Dennis Adams disagrees with the University's research agenda. The group officially opposes embryonic stem-cell research.

"I don't like the fact that Stanford receives state and private funding to do embryonic stem-cell research," Adams said. "In fact, I disapprove of embryonic stem-cell research anywhere, whether at Stanford or any other institution. I think it speaks a lot about Stanford's code of ethics with respect to scientific research; to me, this means the University needs to reevaluate its goals in contributing to the common good of society."

Research at the School of Medicine's Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine is undertaken with guidance from the Center for Biomedical Ethics regarding the ethical considerations of stem-cell research. The University's policy regarding this research "is designed to help researchers take advantage of state funding opportunities while remaining compliant with federal law," the Institute's website says. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Panel oversees the enforcement of this policy.

Scientists apply for funding through the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), a state initiative created in 2004 by Proposition 71. The proposition was crafted in response to the federal restrictions imposed by the Bush administration in 2001, and reaffirmed with last week's veto.

Stanford researchers must undergo training and may pursue embryonic stem cell research using University facilities and equipment on the condition that they receive no federal support.

Last Friday, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced a new $150-million loan to CIRM, allowing some research to begin.

"I'm 100 percent committed to advancing stem-cell research in California, and to the promise that it holds for millions of our citizens who suffer from chronic diseases," Schwarzenegger said Friday.

Scott remarked that Schwarzenegger's loan "is a very good thing for California schools because the next stage of research can get underway. The fact that the state initiative is showing some life is a very good sign."

However, Berg highlighted the scientific collaboration that may be lost with the veto.

"What we need is not just California scientists working on this," he said. "What we need is as many people working in this field as possible to generate the kinds of breakthroughs and discoveries that are going to make this a prominent field."

Berg also emphasized that the lack of federal funding hinders research at Stanford in a major way, despite the fact that Stanford scientists are funded privately and by the state. For example, much of Stanford's laboratory equipment and facilities receive federal funding and therefore cannot be used for stem-cell research.

"We don't have the facilities in which to do the research because of this prohibition," added Berg.

Though Hurlbut acknowledged the difficulties faced in national collaboration and facility and equipment use, he said he did not think the veto would have a major impact on Stanford due to the funding received from Proposition 71.

Hurlbut also maintained that the future of biology centers around the study of embryogenesis and later development.

"We're in the age of developmental biology now," he said. "This is just the first of many dilemmas we're going to face where there is going to be moral conflict. Science always proceeds forward within a frame of moral consideration."

"It is understandable that Stanford would seek to become prominent in embryonic stem cell research," Hurlbut continued. "I think this science is worth pursuing. If we can get these cells without creating and destroying embryos, then all of America could go forward with affirmation of this research."

Hurlbut himself supports an alternative process known as Altered Nuclear Transfer, which produces pluripotent stem cells without creating or destroying embryos. Adams also philosophically disagrees with the current use and destruction of the human embryo. He hopes the University reconsiders its approach to stem-cell research.

"Stanford is the hub of the latest scientific research in many fields; it's regarded in high esteem by leaders worldwide," Adams said. "It would be even more impressive if the University could set the highest precedent of ethical principles."

Berg estimated that 95 percent of Stanford scientists and faculty members are supportive of stem-cell research.

"Stanford is gung-ho for doing this research and we're in the process of raising money to build a building which will house the Stem Cell Institute," he said. "I'm sure that we'll succeed in doing that in the next couple years."

"The University supports stem-cell research," agreed Scott. "There's a general feeling among those I work with at the Center for Biomedical Ethics that, with some oversight, embryonic stem cell research ought to go ahead full-speed."

[ Back to Student Voices ]