Jewish World Review August 10, 2001 / 21 Menachem-Av, 5761

Michael A.Glueck & Robert J. Cihak

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Blood, Guts & Glory: The Stem of the Stem Cell controversy -- IN spite of the liberal press laying-in-wait to criticize whatever the President said, we think Bush got it right! But more of that later.

Take out your pencils for a pop quiz -- what's a stem cell?

We bet most Americans, while having an opinion about stem cell research, can't answer the question. While dueling political pundits sound off "Yeah" or "Nay" for government funding of embryonic stem cell research, we think everyone's missing some of the most basic questions that go to the heart of the debate. Let's take a moment to turn down the volume and examine the facts.

First off, what in the world are human "stem cells?" For that matter, what are cells?

These biological cells are one kind of tiny, tiny living building block that make up living things, including our own bodies. They are so tiny that our body is made up of trillions of cells.

Most cells have a primary job such as skin cells which protect more delicate parts of the body underneath the skin, red blood cells which carry oxygen to all parts of the body and brain motor cells which send out signals carried over nerve cells to muscle cells that cause our fingers to type these words.

In contrast, stem cells can divide and differentiate or turn into many kinds of cells. For example, millions of blood cells are released into the blood stream every second, divided off from the stem cells inside the bone marrow. Our bodies need these millions of blood cells every second to replace the millions recycled by the body every second. In another example, the cells lining your guts and digesting that bagel you ate this morning only live about 3 days before being recycled. Blood and gut stem cells keep dividing to produce these cells.

Because of the way they work, stem cells are intensely interesting to medical scientists because these cells might provide clues for curing or treating disease. Much like the cavalry riding in to save the day, your body's own stem cells can quickly fill in the gaps when derivative cell types are needed. Scientists hope they can figure out how to make stem cells do that job even better, so they can be used to restore health in people with diseases such as Parkinson's and diabetes.

Scientists have been doing adult stem cell research for a decade, while the experimental use of embryonic cells only started in 1998. But the most progress and most promising treatments so far have come from use of adult stem cells, not embryonic ones. At this time, hopes for possible cures from embryonic stem cells are still science fiction.

The question facing President Bush and Congress is whether embryonic stem cell research should be funded with taxpayers' money. Many private companies are already working with stem cells, including embryonic stem cells. That research would continue without government funding.

There are some practical reasons for the government to keep its red-tape encrusted mitts off embryonic stem cell research, mainly that government-funded research is subject to the winds of political fashion and establishment thinking; cutting-edge ideas have a harder time getting money than older and safer ideas. At the same time, trillions of taxpayers' dollars have simply disappeared, without a trace, down bureaucratic and research rat holes.

But the all this heat, smoke and light generated by the current debate leads us to believe that the issue is basically a philosophical or religious question -- is a human being destroyed to produce embryonic stem cells?

Supporters say that the embryos used are leftover from fertility treatments, and would be destroyed anyway. Opponents respond that the argument is a rationalization and question the practices producing these "out of body" embryos. Both positions are based on strongly held beliefs about when human life begins.

But black and white arguments often turn gray when you or a loved one are waiting for a cure. Even some who say human embryos shouldn't be sacrificed to harvest stem cells respond differently when offered hope of a cure for a loved one.

Many of the politicians and commentators on the question have become instant experts, usually relying on their own view of how the world works and what's important. Many also demean the position of people with diverse views.

Science writer and commentator Michael Fumento warns "people are scared. Rightly or wrongly, use of embryonic cells invokes visions of Dr. Josef Mengele and a terrifying slippery slope towards playing around with human life."

Ultimately, it seems that the debate is not so much between science versus religion, but between conflicting religious, or if you prefer, "belief" systems that will never be reconciled.

If and when the government does get involved, we think identifying and using adult stem cells would have been the most practical and pragmatic direction for government-sponsored research to take.

Last night, Thursday, August 9, 2001, President Bush shared his mind, soul and heart with the nation. He did better research and articulated the various positions on the question far better than most journalists and scientists. His clear 1700 word ten and one-half minute speech certainly is one of the most philosophic in history.

His decision to fund research on the 60 existing embryonic stem cell lines but not to fund research that would destroy any more embryos is close to our position. Although purists would prefer no research on any existing stem cell lines we are willing to cut the President some slack as these lines existed before he was Commander-In-Chief.

In taking this cautious approach the President has wisely taken a path that can be altered as the the evidence comes forth. In the days, months and years ahead this will serve the country well as together we deal with these very perplexing and controversial issues. We salute President Bush for taking a stand and sticking with it.

Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., of Newport Beach, Calif., writes on medical, legal, disability and mental health reform. Robert J. Cihak, M.D., of Aberdeen, Wash., is president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Both JWR contributors are Harvard trained diagnostic radiologists who write numerous commentaries and articles for newspapers, newsletters, magazines and journals nationally and internationally. Comment by clicking here.


© 2001, Michael A. Glueck & Robert J. Cihak