 |
As all of you are aware, the field of stem cell research is enmeshed in tough ethical issues. The fact that stem cells are taken from discarded human embryos has left some Americans conflicted. It also has convinced the federal government to curtail funding and limit the supply of cells available for laboratory study. And so, at the moment scientists are ready to unlock the secrets of these basic building blocks, they find themselves stymied.
It’s not often that you find Hopkins researchers abandoning their labs to take part in a political debate. Yet that’s just what’s happening on stem cell funding. Over the spring and summer, John Gearhart—whose groundbreaking discovery of human stem cells in 1999 kicked off this whole field of study—and stem cell and cancer biologist Curt Civin went to Washington to persuade Congress that the 22 embryonic stem cell lines approved for federal funding by President Bush must be expanded. They were just two of the Hopkins leaders who have taken a national stand. As an institution, Hopkins also has gone all out to help pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act in the House and lobbied the Senate to ease restrictions on this research.
We can only influence the political process by basing our reasoning on sound ethics and science.
Because we stand to lose much if our government continues to curtail this research. One of my greatest fears is that restraints on this work will create a situation similar to Prohibition. The research will continue despite the government. It will be driven into settings—overseas or into the hands of private labs—where federal agencies won’t be able to control it. Our government will have no idea what’s happening as the research moves forward. Who will then ensure that unethical things don’t happen?
Already, a troubling “brain drain” has begun among biomedical researchers as leadership in stem cell research shifts to Singapore, Great Britain and South Korea. Washington has one way to stop this: It must restore control of stem cell research to NIH by funding projects that involve diverse new lines of stem cells extracted from frozen embryos stored in fertility centers and donated by couples who no longer need them. Our own NIH is in the best position to evaluate the science, assess the outcomes and decide if funding for specific projects should continue.
Finally, a comment on the fact that the president’s restrictions have encouraged states—unwisely I think—to jump into the stem cell pool. California and New Jersey have established large funds to lure cellular researchers. Other states, including Maryland, are eager to mimic these economic initiatives. My experience tells me that funding science on the state level can be fickle. Maryland, for instance, has exhibited shrinking support for cancer research. I’m troubled by the prospect of 50 states with 50 different sets of stem cell regulations. It’s one of the best arguments for strong federal leadership. Politicians want results before the next election, but medical science doesn’t work that way.
Medicine is on the cusp of a scientific revolution that could transform the way physicians practice. But there’s a long, winding road ahead with many mysteries to unravel. As John Gearhart puts it, we’re only “at the end of the beginning.” We, as health care providers, are desperate not to lose this opportunity.
