Cross posted at Jivin J.....a must read to understand this debate. Picture from WSJ article.
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.
