Today’s WSJ carries an exclusive by Janet Adamy and Laura Meckler about the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that blocked, at least temporarily, federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. In an interview, the two scientists, James Sherley and Theresa Deisher, raised ethical objections to destroying human embryos for medical research.
Deisher, a self-described former “left-wing liberal,” slammed the research, and said her own field of adult stem-cell science is more promising.
Here are some edited excerpts from the interview:
WSJ: How did you become involved with this issue?
Deisher: I had been working on stem cells and regenerative medicine really since I was a graduate student, and that was back in 1985 to 1990 at Stanford. At that time, the entire field of regenerative medicine was against scientific dogma. All the scientists were telling me back then “No, you’re crazy. There’s no such thing as regenerative medicine.”
In 1995-1996, I really sort of stumbled on the first adult cardiac resident stem cells. That created a huge furor at my company. At that time, I was really a left-wing liberal. I don’t know at that point that I would have morally objected to the use of human embryos for research. I have come to the point where I do because when you work in this area you’re forced to face those kind of issues. The best thing for a patient is always their own stem cells whenever that’s possible. Why wouldn’t we be celebrating and promoting adult stem-cell research?
Sherley: I’m an M.D., Ph.D.-trained scientist, and what that means in this country is my education’s been funded by taxpayers and my laboratory and research is funded by it as well. In my training, what I’ve realized is scientists have a responsibility to the people, and that’s to do the best research that we can do. With [National Institutes of Health] funding, that’s research that’s going to have the goal of leading to the better health of people.
About 2004, I was sitting in my kitchen with my kids listening to the radio – I have two daughters – and I heard one of my colleagues responding to a question from an interviewer. The question was, “Do scientists and physicians know when life begins?” And the response was, we weren’t sure. I knew that not to be the case. My whole reason for being here now is because of recognizing there’s a need for scientists to give the public information that’s correct. And then the public can make more informed decisions about what we should do with embryos and embryonic stem cell research.
WSJ: What did you think of President George W. Bush’s stem-cell policy (under which scientists could use a limited number of existing embryonic stem cell lines)?
Sherley: I didn’t like it either. The analogy one can give is this. Somebody goes into a house and they steal something. They sell it to somebody else and that person then uses it. Somebody else destroys the embryos. The question is whether that’s ethical. In my view, and many others, it’s not.
WSJ: What role did religion play in your involvement in this?
Deisher: President Barack Obama actually said in one of his speeches in the last year and a half that we weren’t going to allow morals to interfere with science. Our entire scientific process in the United States is predicated on respect for other people’s morals and philosophies. That’s respect for the people who are concerned about animal rights. Our research, all of our protocols, are very highly restricted and vetted, and it’s out of respect for people’s philosophies. So why would one choose to do something and to put American resources on this if it’s not safe, those cells form tumors, they’re not effective, they’re extremely expensive and they offend the morals of half of your population?
WSJ: Since you filed the lawsuit, have you gotten angry calls or emails?
Deisher: I have, and I’ve gotten them from people who don’t understand the science.
Sherley: Lots of emails from people I don’t know. Maybe two handfuls.
No comments:
Post a Comment