Stem cell order tests science-politics relationship
President Obama's decision to allow federal tax dollars to be used with embryonic stem cell research does more than reverse his predecessor's policies and fulfill a long-standing campaign promise. It also reopens the debate about how well science and politics can, or should, mix.
On Monday, Obama signed an executive order allowing research on more stem cell lines than the Bush administration had permitted in its political compromise eight years ago.
"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it's also about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said. He added that such research must be subject to strict guidelines, and "we will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted."
Some representatives of the biotechnology industry praised Obama's decision, saying it will do more than provide additional funding--it could also stimulate private investment by giving the market more confidence in the field.
The world of private financing has largely dried up, said Michael Werner, an attorney for Holland & Knight who represents stem cell companies and is a founding board member of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research. Obama's decision may change that, he said.
But critics and skeptics of Obama's decision say that injecting taxpayer dollars into a delicate and already controversial scientific process could backfire. Obama's decision to make stem cell research scientifically worthy of federal tax dollars is as much of a politically subjective decision as Bush's choice not to, they say.
In addition, it's difficult for companies to make long-term plans about funding because Obama's successor could reverse this decision yet again, a situation that economist Robert Higgs has dubbed "regime uncertainty." Or Congress could overrule him with yet another set of rules.
Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in health care reform, said permitting more tax dollars to be spent on scientific research will only complicate the field.
"It is inevitable that when you get federal money involved, you politicize the issue," Tanner said. "I worry that it comes at the expense of sound science. I don't think you can say somehow the Obama administration is going to be a blank slate when it comes to science. Is the Obama administration really going to be open to a study that shows there is no global warming?"
Research manipulation
In the case of global warming, both sides have accused the other of manipulating research findings to reach political ends. The late author Michael Crichton described this in his book State of Fear, concluding with an essay saying: "Groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded... (and) vague terms like sustainability and generational justice--terms that have no agreed definition--are employed in the service of a new crisis."
During the Bush administration, former Surgeon General Richard Carmona accused his bosses of political interference, and House Democrats released a report in 2003 accusing the administration of manipulating science related to wetlands, stem cells, missile defense, and sex education. (Bush aides say that, contrary to that claim about stem cell research, they acted after consulting scientists. Also, the previous policy merely restricted taxpayer funds being spent on this purpose; private companies could continue to pursue research without hindrance.)
An extreme example was the Soviet Union, which suppressed genetic research in favor of the pseudoscience known as Lysenkoism.
to suggest you need
federal money to make
this research work.
senior fellow,
Cato Institute
For its part, the current administration has tried to distance itself from any appearance of impropriety. On Monday, Obama also signed a presidential memorandum saying: "Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions. If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the federal government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public."
The executive order that Obama signed overturns restrictions President Bush instituted in 2001 that limited federal funding to 21 existing stem cell lines. The National Institutes of Health will have 120 days to develop guidelines for evaluating funding requests.
"What's interesting is that in the early part of this decade, when stem cell research was under scrutiny by folks in Washington, a lot of companies felt it impacted the private markets because there was a sort of cloud over it," said Werner, the attorney representing stem cell companies. "The private markets kind of responded to the sense that maybe this is gong to be outlawed, maybe there is something wrong with this research. What will be interesting to see is whether the same would be true now that there will be such a shot in the arm from the administration for this research."
The United States has the proper policies to bring research to the marketplace, such as protections for intellectual property, Werner said, but without a federal commitment to basic research in a scientific area, it will be harder to bring ideas to market. In the area of stem cell research, a lack of federal support may impact the development of regenerative medicine and therapies, which Werner called "the new paradigm of health care moving forward."
"When it gets down to approval from the FDA, they'll be more likely to do that when there's a body of research out there," he said. "Anything that adds that knowledge to the public space will be a huge help to adding technologies to this industry. We know how to promote and support biomedical research--we just didn't do it in this area."'
More money equals results?
Scientific arguments over the use of adult stem cells vs. embryonic stem cells, as well as claims of potential applications for the research, have been distorted in attempts to win the political debate, said the Cato Institute's Tanner.
Moreover, it is questionable whether public funds will accomplish anything the private sector has not or cannot, Tanner said.
"Scientists always want more money, but the evidence to suggest there's a line of research not being done right now because of a lack of federal money--I've never had anybody able to show me that," he said.
The in vitro fertilization industry has thrived on private capital, Tanner said.
"There's no evidence to suggest you need federal money to make this research work," he said.
will free up all of these
resources in the scientific
community.
CEO, Neuralstem
Richard Garr, president and CEO of Neuralstem, a company working to develop a stem cell therapy for Lou Gehrig's disease, acknowledged there may or may not be new technologies that emerge from additional funding resources.
"The thing about basic research is, it's kind of like shooting an arrow and putting the target where it lands," he said.
Still, Garr said, the research that will this executive order will facilitate includes basic research as well as work on products in the late stages of development. The federal funding will largely go to universities and public research institutions rather than the private sector, but companies like Garr's invest in those projects. Garr's Neuralstem, for instance, pays for research being conducted at the University of California at San Diego.
"To the extent that the infrastructure is there and universities are staffed up, that affects private companies," Garr said.
Restricting federal funding to certain stem cell lines complicated the way universities had to conduct their research, he said, since federally funded projects would not be confused with other projects. The initial funds from California's Proposition 71--which passed in 2004, allocating $3 billion for human embryonic stem-cell experiments--were spent on real estate.
"You literally couldn't do research in the same labs for approved lines and unapproved lines," Garr said. "Lifting these restrictions will free up all of these resources in the scientific community."
While states like California stepped in to fund projects that the federal government would not, private sources did as well. Major companies like Aastrom, Geron Corp., and Stemcells, Inc. all increased their research and development expenditures on stem cell research from 2005 through 2007, according to a 2008 analysis (PDF) from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Even if the economy continues to stall for months, private capital for worthy projects will be available in the long term, Tanner said.
"We're talking about research that's not going to see fruition for years," he said. "Whether or not there's a great deal of investment capital this year is not a great concern."
CNET's Declan McCullagh contributed to this report
Stephanie Condon is a staff writer for CNET News focused on the intersection of technology and politics. She is based in Washington, D.C. E-mail Stephanie. 
Bending over backwards for inept republicans and then getting it thrown in his face is partisanship? Funny how Repiglicans whine and cry about it, especially since the electorate soundly rejected the politics of failure the last 2 election cycles.
A so-called libertarian think tank arguing against the removal of a government regulation? Strange--but of course they object to public funding in general.
And anyone who compares cutting edge research with an applied field like in vitro fertilization isjust plain dishonest. IVF has a service that people want (sometimes desperately) and are willing to pay for--Oh, that's just like pure research which may take years to yield a practical result--if at all. And deep space exploration shouldn't be funded--look at how well airplanes are doing!
You quote representatives of the industry--and a hard-right ideologist with no expertise in the field. Someone whose larger positions would affect how a reader would see his commentary. Why nt have a Marxist put in some comments as well. You know, for 'balance'.
I believe the Nazis used the same approach prior to the Second World War and during the Second World War to describe and "justify" their despicable violations of human rights and destruction of human life.
The bottom line is that the embryo-research advocates are treating human life as simply another form of lab animal.
This opens the door to all kinds of evil people who will use the claim of "scientific advancement" to justify treating people as disposable. And the weakest among us will pay the price and suffer the consequences.
Obama has done a bad thing.
If you want to argue that it has a soul and spirit before it's even a seperate entity, then go join the rest of the hippies of the world in protesting eating meat or anything else humans do. I'd rather not see groundbreaking cures held up by a religion I don't follow, and the donated embryo's families don't follow.
Now shut up and let me eat my baby burger.
We must ban all, private or government-funded (State or Federal) ESC research.
Tell us all here, on a public forum, why it is that you, Smallvoice, don't go out and adopt an unwanted child. Why don't you organize the feeding, sheltering, clothing, and educating of all unwanted babies, orphans, or abandoned children everywhere? If there's room for all, then make room in your heart and your home for someone that has nothing, or even someone that is less fortunate than you.
You won't do any of this and I'll tell you why; because deep down, you're selfish. You don't really care about anyone beyond yourself and those that share your provincial and myopic views.
Your attack is unfounded and incorrect. I presume the "programs that help their fellow humans" is a reference to welfare and similar programs. I, as a "right-to-lifer" don't like those programs because they encourage the wrong behavior. People unwilling to work, for example, should suffer, and their are many on welfare that simply don't care to work. If the Government didn't take money to spend on such programs, there would be more funds for unselfish people or family members to use to help the destitute. It's a matter of self-reliance and family values.
According to your strange view of right-to-life, you think that the death penalty is a problem. The death penalty is a deterrent to those who would take the life of others. It's the right to life of the murdered person right-to-lifers care about. You might think that prison is a deterrent, but it hardly is today because prison life is too nice in the U.S.
Just wars (look up the term) are legitimate, too, because they involve taking lives in a circumscribed manner in order to reduce suffering, death, etc. otherwise occurring.
@xcopy
Regardless of whether smallvoice responds, your vitriolic questioning implies that knowledge that smallvoice doesn't do the things you ranted about. Maybe smallvoice does those things or something else you might think equally good. If not, one should also ask whether smallvoice should do so while the Government forces the funding of such programs already. Turnabout is fair play, too, so do you do those things you expected of smallvoice?
Regardless of whether smallvoice responds, your vitriolic questioning implies that knowledge that smallvoice doesn't do the things you ranted about. Maybe smallvoice does those things or something else you might think equally good. If not, one should also ask whether smallvoice should do so while the Government forces the funding of such programs already. Turnabout is fair play, too, so do you do those things you expected of smallvoice?
Vitriol? What vitriol ? I've only hinted at what I really think of you "pro life" nutjobs.
Besides, what does what I do matter? I'm not the one calling for a ban on stem cell research because I want a population increase. I'm not the one foisting false piety on everyone else. What, and who, I am is the one that is asking why you people (republicans, nutjuobs, religious fanatics, but I repeat myself) aren't doing everything they can for unfortunate children that are already born, not some mythical unborn soul. I actually know the answer.
You, on the other hand, with your false piety and 16th century untenable position, should be out there adopting, providing for, and sacrificing for all those children, those children that the anti-choice crowd profess to love so much. So where's your money pal. Want to put it where your mouth is, or like every other religious nut jobs do you just want to spout off?
I suggest that you, your family, and everyone that thinks the way you do, fore go any cures or benefits arising from SCR . Please refuse any and all benefits, both medically and economically, because SCR is morally "wrong". Please, when the time comes, I'd like you to suffer needlessly and succumb to your illness in a dark room where we don't have to hear you whine or complain. What I don't want to hear from you, or any in your gang, ever, is that you want to be treated. I want you to live your dream.
You're all a bunch of moronic hypocrites..
PS - Pentest hit the nail on the head.
These people need to go back to a fecal smelling, rat infested, plague incubating abbey of the 14th century where they belong! Christians need to suffer more, it makes them feel worthwhile!
As John Wayne once said " Life's tough, it's much tougher if your stupid"
Tolerance?
I think you deserve all the tolerance that you nutjobs have shown others in the last two decades; in other words... NONE.
You can continue to believe the world is flat for all I can but don't get in my way of progress please. Stay on the sideline and wail and cry and wave the bible if that completes you.
- by c|net Reader March 11, 2009 1:58 PM PDT
- Overall, I'm greatly impressed by this article. Ms Condon seems to have tried very hard to present a balanced view of the issues. The only thing missing, which I think is glaring by its omission, is the reason for the ban President Bush instituted. Many believe that life begins at conception which means that creating embryos from which to harvest stem cells is no different than killing a person to harvest organs. Thus, rather than force funds from taxpayers to use on something considered morally heinous, President Bush thought it better to leave embryonic stem cell research (on new embryos) to private investors. This is the same argument used to try to keep Federal funds from abortions.
- Reply to this comment
-
(25 Comments)Whether you agree with that view, it is a valid view and the Government is better off not forcing taxpayers to fund such activities. If there is sufficient value in embryonic stem cell research above adult stem cell research, then private investors should be willing to front the money. The inefficiencies that approach imposes are lamentable, but that is far preferable to taking a person's money to fund what they consider murder.