Science Has Returned to the White House

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, March 27, 2009

A couple of weeks ago, President Barack Obama signed an executive order reversing a policy that denied access to valuable research. Scientists and medical researchers applauded the shift from the dark ages to a new age of enlightenment that embraces science instead of distorting and suppressing it.

No one could accuse Obama’s predecessor of promoting scientific research. In fact, the Bush Administration’s reputation for obstructing the scientific community is notorious. Thousands of scientists signed on to an indictment of the highest level of the administration for interference and abuses that had widespread effects on issues from health to climate change. Reports from the Environmental Protection Agency were purged of language that was inconsistent with the administration’s energy agenda or was inconvenient to parties with vested interests in high-emissions activities. Despite objections from the staff of the Center for Disease Control (CDC), data and research about the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education vs. comprehensive education programs were misrepresented. A fact sheet on the CDC’s own website, which included information on proper condom use, the efficacy of different types of condoms, and what effects condom education has on sexual activity, was replaced at the behest of administration officials by a document over-emphasizing the failure rates of condoms. Information was posted on the National Cancer Institute website, which suggested a connection between abortion and breast cancer that had long been refuted by scientific study. Myriad other offenses were cited by the Union of Concerned Scientists who issued a full report, which is available at www.ucsusa.org.

Bush gave stem cell researchers a slap in the face in 2001 when he restricted study to a handful of cell lines and banned public funding for further research. The 21 existing lines were limited in their diversity and hundreds of new lines showed promise for the treatment of diseases like Parkinson’s. The decision further hindered progress by blocking cooperation between privately- and federally-funded research.

The administration chose to limit medical advancement in order to solidify a select group among its political base that sees stem cell research as a moral issue. This sect of conservatism has been successful in presenting a false connection between stem cells and abortion. Fear tactics have been employed to build up slippery slope scenarios that are scientifically unfounded.

Myths abound about both the embryonic stem cell process and the effectiveness of alternative adult stem cells.

Pro-life propaganda equates stem cell research with abortion and the destruction of a fetus despite the fact that the embryos originate in fertility clinics and would be discarded if not used for research. Some argue that a program called Snowflake Children (which adopts embryos from fertility clinics to be implanted in infertile women) could make use of those that would otherwise be destroyed, but the numbers that will be used by this project are insignificant compared with the hundreds of thousands that will be discarded. Still others claim that advances in adult cell research have made it possible to create induced pluripotent stem cells that are comparable to their embryonic counterparts. The fact is that these processes are imperfect at best. Early methods required use of viruses to induce the reprogramming of adult cells, which increases the risk of cancer. A recent breakthrough has offered a reprogramming process that doesn’t use viruses, and that has caused many to declare embryonic stem cell research obsolete. The fact is most scientists agree that the resulting cells are at least in some ways inferior to embryonic cells and that their viability is in question. In any case, the reprogramming of cells requires vast resources above and beyond those required to employ embryonic cells which already have the flexibility and power to create any human cell.

The consensus in the scientific community is that both adult and embryonic cells need further study. Obama’s decision to reopen the science books allows that study to proceed.

Health foundations and researchers are excited by the promise of progress toward the treatment of conditions like diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s made possible by this change in policy. The freedom of federally funded and privately funded scientists to collaborate on research is a key difference as is the ability to work with ethnically and genetically diverse cell lines. New projects will be eligible for federal funding, which will increase their chances for success. Private research will also be brought under the umbrella of the National Institute of Health (NIH) providing greater funding. NIH involvement brings with it ethical oversight, which may help calm the fears of stem cell research opponents.

Moral controversy remains and will continue, fueled in part by disinformation and deceit. However, the moral obligation to provide the best medical treatment science will afford should not overlooked. Embryonic stem cell research is not the only answer, but Obama has reopened the door to finding new solutions.