Stem cell research an emotional, social issue

It is widely known that advances in biotechnology, like stem
cell therapy, have the potential to cure Alzheimer’s,
Parkinson’s, diabetes and other diseases.

However, there are several aspects of this research that are
cause for concern and fodder for controversy.

Critics worry about the destruction of embryos, meddling with
natural processes and a slippery slope that might lead to the
adoption of technology that will radically alter society and what
it means to be human.

Last year, President George W. Bush imposed a ban on such
research and has said, “We should not as a society grow life
to destroy it. It’s morally wrong.”

But these are not decisions that one person or group of persons
will be able to make.

In the face of fierce social objection, several factors will
drive controversial medical research.

The primary force will be the afflicted and those connected to
them. Patients suffering from degenerative diseases like
Parkinson’s or diabetes are hopeful that stem cell therapy
will be a cure for their ailments.

These patients and their families represent a powerful lobby
that will continue to press for research freedom and funding.

Nancy Reagan has become an advocate of stem cell research
because her husband, who many consider the greatest Republican
president of the last century, has Alzheimer’s disease.

This is ironic, because the right-wing Republican party is the
source of most stem cell criticism.

This illustrates an important point ““ regardless of your
principles or judgments of stem cell technology, it is difficult to
fault a parent, spouse or child who is pleading for the life of a
relative.

But while families are concerned for their loved ones, the
biotech industry is concerned for its bottom line.

In the absence of federal legislation banning human cloning and
embryonic stem cell research, some state legislatures have banned
one or both in the name of morality and preserving human
dignity.

While these states have moved to ban human cloning (which many
scientists believe to be dangerous and immoral), the states that
also banned stem cell research predictably have had a low level of
investment in the biotech industry.

States with large biotech industries, like California and
Massachusetts, haven’t banned stem cell research and are
unlikely to do so.

Biotech in the San Francisco Bay Area alone accounted for 34,000
jobs and $7.6 billion in revenues during 2001.

Those numbers make for a powerful contribution to the California
economy, and any move to restrict stem cell research or any other
area of biotech would scare away further investment.

For this reason, Gov. Gray Davis recently signed a bill that
explicitly supported stem cell research. Davis’ move
represents a signal to the biotech industry that California is a
safe place to do business and will likely result in further biotech
investment.

In addition, our increasingly integrated world will further
complicate efforts to restrict or ban controversial technology.

A ban enacted by one country could be circumvented by travelling
to another country for treatment. The United States and Europe have
been debating and regulating these issues for the past several
years, but many developing countries ““ particularly in
Southeast Asia ““ have paid little attention to these issues
and are likely to become havens for an unregulated scientific
fringe.

In light of these driving forces, we must ask important
questions about where this technology is taking us, and how can we
maintain a cohesive society which adheres to our social principles
and democratic values.

The scientific and ethical choices we make today will have far
reaching consequences on our health, our economy and our
children’s future.

We may not be able to stop technology that seems dangerous, but
we should seek to control and guide the terms of its adoption.