BRAVE
NEW BABIES By
Tim and Barb Aho
THE
UNPROTECTED SUBJECTS OF BIO-MEDICAL RESEARCH On
August 9, 2001, President George Bush announced to the nation a new government
policy which would provide federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The
president added the qualification that the public funds would be limited to research
on human embryos which have already been destroyed and would eventually be discarded
anyway. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that have the ability to form themselves
into any kind of cell in the body.They are also able to divide and reproduce themselves
indefinitely in the laboratory. Taking stem cells from human embryos destroys
the embryos. To the wonder and amazement of the biomedical world, the president
stated that the proposed federal funding would cover more than 60 existing stem
cell lines that have been developed from original human embryonic stem cell cultures: �As
a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines
already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed,
and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing
opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds
to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death
decision has already been made. Leading scientists tell me research on these 60
lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures.� Stem
cell lines are genetically identical or similar families or colonies of
stem cells cultured from those originally taken from human embryos. Although Bush
claims that �leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great
promise,� scientists worldwide are stating that they are aware of only 10 to
15 human stem cell lines in existence. There is speculation that the president�s generous
estimate of the number of existing stem cell lines authorizes research on cell
lines that were formerly ineligible on ethical grounds. However, Bush's mention of 60+ lines, rather
than 10 to 15, indicates that the whole field of fetal research may be far more
advanced than is being reported. President
Bush�s decision overrides a Congressional ban on federal funding for
research in which human embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected
to serious risk. The President is, in effect, restoring the
liberal policy of the Clinton administration of funding with taxpayer monies research
of embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) at the earliest
stages of development. The NIH
Revitalization Act of 1993 cleared the way for federal funding for research of
embryos created through IVF. However, little more than a year later, Congress
retreated from that position and imposed a new ban on federal funding for such
research�a ban that effectively blocked funds for IVF research once again.
Although President Bush�s new policy restores the Clinton/NIH pro-death
initiative, a chorus of high profile neo-evangelical leaders have orchestrated
applause for the new policy among pro-life conservatives. In order to view President Bush�s stem cell
policy as a pro-life victory, Christians are being asked to suspend judgment on
the barbaric methods employed to obtain embryonic stem cells for research and
to be grateful for the new federal funding of research on the dead embryos�a
limitation that will surely be removed with pressure from the biomedical establishment
upon Congress. A well-organized disinformation campaign is underway to
conceal the fact that the Bush policy actually advances the pro-abortion objectives
of the biomedical industry, which depends on the availability of a large quantity
of human embryos/fetuses to conduct research on a broad scale. Although the new stem cell policy limits federal
funding of stem cell research, privately funded stem cell research has for many
years been conducted in corporate laboratories without regulation of any kind.
Such research facilities will now also receive federal funds with the new proviso
attached. However, there will continue to be no restrictions on
private funds for stem cell research. One
favorable analysis of President Bush�s stem cell address by neo-evangelical
leader, Charles Colson, asserts that Bush
upheld the principle that �human life is sacred.� However, in his address
to the nation, the president equivocated on the fundamental issue of when human
life begins, stating only that human embryos �have the potential for life.�
A few paragraphs later, Colson regretted that the president did not call
for �an outright ban on stem cell research��the only action that would have
upheld the sanctity of human life. Nonetheless, says Colson, the president has
�drawn a line in the sand.� At
the Edge of the Unknown: Assessing the Stem Cell Controversy �The President�s decision not to allow federal
funding that would lead to the killing of embryos is, I believe, the defining
moment of his presidency thus far. For the first time, in my memory at least,
a sitting president has grappled publicly with a critical moral issue and, unapologetically,
drawn a line in the sand. Beyond this divide, he said from his ranch in Crawford,
Texas, we will not trespass. Human life is sacred. Bush�s decision took enormous courage� �Now,
I would have preferred an outright ban on stem cell research, but I recognize
that politics is �the art of the possible,� and that political leaders have
to make prudential judgments in the face of strongly divided opinion. In this
case, Bush made his decision with one eye on a Congress ready to vote for all-out
stem cell research. Had he not allowed the continued research, Congress would
have overturned his decision.� 1.
Chuck Colson seems to have no recollection
that last spring the newly-inaugurated president stated that his pro-life views would compel him to continue the
ban on public funding of stem cell research. Colson�s readiness to compromise
on the issue of embryonic stem cell research reflects a fact of which the Christian
community is generally unaware�that the organization which Colson founded and
has directed since 1976, Prison Fellowship International, is an NGO in Special
Consultative Status with the United Nations. Prison Fellowship International is
listed as such on the United
Nations NGO Database and the PFI web
site also makes reference to its NGO status:
�PFI maintains NGO (non-governmental
organization) consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council and
is an active participant in the UN Alliance of NGO�s on Crime Prevention and
Criminal Justice.� 2.
In
Special Consultative capacity, Colson�s organization is required to be in conformity
with the aims, purposes and work of the United Nations. Principles
to Be Applied in the Establishment of Consultative Relations are clearly stated
on the UN/NGO Database: The following principles shall
be applied in establishing consultative relations with non-governmental organizations:
1. The organization shall be
concerned with matters falling within the competence of the Economic and Social
Council and its subsidiary bodies. 2. The aims and purposes of the organization shall
be in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the
United Nations. 3. The organization shall undertake
to support the work of the United Nations and to promote knowledge of its principles
and activities, in accordance with its own aims and purposes and the nature and
scope of its competence and activities. 3. Needless
to say, the aims, purposes and work of the UN do not include protection of the
unborn, but rather legalization of abortion on demand throughout the world. In
order to understand the less than stunning success of the pro-life movement, one
only needs to consider the strange
bedfellows which serve the United Nations as NGOs in the abbreviated lisitng
below:
American Life League [Judie Brown] - ECOSOC Category
- Special Consultative Status Eagle
Forum [Phyllis Schafly] - ECOSOC Category - Special Consultative Status
Family Research Council [Focus on the Family] - ECOSOC Category
- Special Consultative Status [FRC letter to UN] International
Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
- ECOSOC Category - General Consultative Status International
Right To Life Federation [Dr. John Wilke] - ECOSOC Category - Roster Lucis
Trust Association - ECOSOC Category - Roster
(Satanic propagator of witchcraft
in the shadow of the UN) Margaret
Sanger Centre International - ECOSOC Category � Roster [Margaret
Sanger founded the Birth Control League, which became Planned Parenthood, with
Rockefeller $$$] National
Right To Life Educational Trust Fund -ECOSOC Category - Special Consultative Status
National
Organization for Women (NOW) - ECOSOC Category � Roster Order
Of The Hospital Of St. John Of Jerusalem, The Most Venerable [Knights of Malta]
- ECOSOC Category - Special Consultative Status Planned
Parenthood Federation Of America (PPFA) - ECOSOC Category - Special Consultative Status Population
Council, The [Rockefeller] -
ECOSOC Category - Special Consultative Status Prison
Fellowship International (PFI) [Charles Colson] - ECOSOC Category - Special
Consultative Status Trilateral
Commission, The ECOSOC Category - Roster Women's
Federation For World Peace International [Sun Myung Moon] - ECOSOC Category - General
Consultative Status World
Evangelical Fellowship (WEF) - ECOSOC Category - Special Consultative Status World
Vision International ) - ECOSOC Category - Special Consultative Status In
their zeal to mobilize Christian support for the Bush agenda, Colson and other
ostensibly pro-life leaders such as D.
James Kennedy and Dr.
James Dobson have glossed over the fact that the president�s passive acceptance
of stem cell research is an implicit endorsement of the scientific creation and
destruction of human embryos for research and experimental purposes�purposes
that extend far beyond the cure of diseases. In
his Statement on Stem Cells,
President Bush acknowledged that scientists admit they are not yet certain if
stem cell research will be able to cure diseases, but merely �believe stem cells
derived from embryos have unique potential.� 4. Note that
the stem cell debate has not been launched at ground zero � that
is, a reasoned discussion of whether embryonic stem cells have or will actually
cure any serious diseases. Rather, from
the beginning, the topic has been framed in the context of a faulty assumption
and carried forward with heart-rending appeals from a host of Hollywood celebrities
with incurable conditions�Mary Tyler Moore, Michael J. Fox and
Christopher Reeve, to name a few. Naturally, only an insensitive beast
might object to a cure for debilitating diseases and disorders such as paralysis, Parkinson�s disease, diabetes, cancer, ALS (Lou Gehrig�s disease), heart disease, Alzheimer�s
or multiple sclerosis. Phyllis Schlafly
of Eagle Forum
[UN/NGO] observes that President Bush rejected the preferable option of federal
funding limited to ethical stem cell research, which has proven successful
in treating diseases, choosing instead to carry on the pro-death policies of Bill
Clinton.
�Did he have an alternative?
Yes. President Bush could have chosen only to support ethical stem cell research,
which has proven more successful scientifically. Over 11,000 babies are born every
day in the United States. Parents can now choose to preserve their child's umbilical
cord, which is rich in stem cells. If every parent made this decision, every human
being would then have a supply of stem cells available to treat future ailments
or disease. �While embryonic
stem cells have yet to provide a single benefit to a human patient, stem cells
from adult tissues, umbilical cords, and placentas have successfully treated tumors,
cancer, and other diseases. Taxpayers will now be forced to pay for unethical,
immoral, and unnecessary embryonic stem cell research. �In
1995, Congress outlawed federal funding for �research in which a human embryo
or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to the risk of injury
or death.� The law is quite clear. Yet, President Bush embraced the Clintonian
interpretation that if private funds were used to kill the embryos then federal
funds can be used to conduct research on their remains. �Twice
in the last year, President Bush clearly stated opposition to federally funded
research that kills living human embryos. President Bush broke his word to the
American people. He made the right decision then but now has caved under pressure.
Congress should immediately reinforce the 1995 law to ensure that all embryos
will be protected from facing a death sentence in the name of experimental research,
regardless of who pays for it,� Schlafly concluded.� 5.
This citation should not be taken as an endorsement of
Phyllis Schafly, who
is a member of the Council for National
Policy�a coalition of prominent neo-evangelical ministries led by Colson,
Kennedy, Dobson and other change agents who conspire with assorted Moonies, Freemasons,
Scientologists, neo and former Nazis, and corporate enterprise to formulate the
pseudo-conservative policies of the Christian Right.
captive audience of the of the huge CNP disinformation network, Christians
have been kept largely ignorant of the criminal methods of research and experimentation
on human fetuses conducted by the people and organizations rushing to do stem
cell research. In the early years of the
pro-life movement, it was reported that embryo research was being conducted to
create new cosmetics and ointments designed to make aging bodies appear more youthful.
However, as the limitations of Roe v. Wade have gradually been extended
from first trimester to partial birth abortions, making available more mature
fetuses for scientific purposes, policy and legal restrictions on fetal research
have been removed to permit even more outrageous purported biomedical research. The Bush policy
provides no regulation of private research per se on human embryos
that have been created in fertility clinics by means of in vitro fertilization,
i.e. those not used by infertile couples, or embryos created exclusively for the
purpose of harvesting stem cells or organs. Indeed, President Bush has indicated more than once that he does not intend to interfere
with private sector research projects which require the mutilation and
destruction of human beings. Since Roe v. Wade, private corporations have
routinely purchased aborted fetuses�many still alive�for research/experimentation
purposes, including organ and stem cell harvesting.
Investigative
journalist, Suzanne Rini, revealed in her book, Beyond Abortion: A Chronicle
of Fetal Research, that the legalization of abortion on demand via Roe v.
Wade and Doe v. Bolton was the result of pressure exerted by the professional
medical research establishment for increased supplies of late term viable fetuses.
Prior to these landmark Supreme Court decisions, medical researchers had to travel
to Europe to obtain living fetuses�an inconvenient and costly method of conducting
business. Mrs. Rini also documented back in 1988 that a substantial number of
human fetuses used in medical research, in fact the preferred type, were �living�
babies, the products of third-trimester abortions, purposely induced from late-term
pregnancies rather than early, and that these fetuses inevitably die in the process
of and due to various experimentation procedures, which are totally unregulated.
�No sooner was the fetus denied personhood
in order to permit abortion (in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade,
1973) than the biomedical research profession entered the scene with plans to
use the human fetus for much-coveted nontherapeutic human experimentation, generally
forbidden under many of civilization�s highest codes. Researchers� various
specialties and inquiries called for using fetuses at various stages of development
and in basically three life situations as they related to the abortion schedule: �The live in-utero fetus. The testing
of drugs, of prenatal diagnostic techniques, of vaccines, of hypotheses about
the effects of diet, stress, and maternal factors are some of the research objectives
for this �class.� These types of experiments have two phases: administering
the drug, prenatal test, caloric deprivation, etc. to the still-living, in-utero
fetus, and then examining the dead fetus, upon abortion, to assess the effects.
In some cases, the fetus is actually killed by the experiment rather than by the
abortion. �The viable fetus, ex-utero, still living
after the abortion. This fetus would be analogous to a premature infant, except
that the fetus would not be permitted to survive the experiment, whereas, most
premature, wanted infants are helped to independence through medical technology.
The viable fetus was included in several early, documented experiments but this
class of fetus was disallowed for nontherapeutic experimentation with government
funds once federal regulations were devised in 1976. However, these regulations
do not govern experiments done with private monies. �The �previable� fetus, ex- or in-utero.
This fetus is defined by the federal regulations as one about to be or already
aborted (but aborted with some vital signs and therefore living). To meet this
criterion, the fetus must be on the abortion schedule up to and including the
second trimester, and weigh no more than 400 grams (about one pound). The thinking
behind allowing this �class� of fetus for research is that it cannot survive
on its own. However, some fetuses have survived with the help of ever-improving
medical technology. Additionally, while federal regulations allow nontherapeutic
research on these fetuses, most states now disallow it and further demand that
nay fetus surviving the abortion procedure, viable or not, must be helped to survival. �The dead fetus. Dead means clinically
dead, that is, with no vital signs. This category of fetus would be said to be
used to gain living tissues. While this is seen by many to be noncontroversial,
others believe that it is unethical to use the living matter of these fetuses
to benefit medical inquiry because they are not simply random victims, such as
those of murder or accidents are, rather, part of an entire class of human being
denied intrinsic rights. The use of this class spurs the analogy of use of the
body parts and tissues of concentration camp victims by the Nazis for anything
from �medical progress� to soap and lampshades. �The
outraged reader may ask if there are laws against this. There are, in fact, government
regulations (not laws) and medical ethics codes that permit it. Strangely, there
are also some state laws that forbid it; these seem, on the basis of evidence
to be presented, to be equivocal and largely unenforced�� 6. At the present time,
some private corporations are preparing to clone human embryos with the objective
of extracting stem cells and, it is feared, more sinister purposes. Could the
biotechnical fixation on cloning�creating
new forms of life, new species, by asexual means,
that reflect esoteric rather than
Christian beliefs�be the force driving the biomedical establishment�s intense
lobbying for human embryos, rather than the treatment of disease? The theatrics
being staged to elicit public sympathy and support for the eradication of disease
through stem cell research have all the characteristics of being the typical philanthropic
facade for Rockefeller eugenics. Another
unsettling matter is the revelation that George Bush�s new policy has removed
some of the strict ethics guidelines fertility clinics must follow in obtaining
embryos. The Bush policy fails to include a previous clause which disallowed the
direct solicitation of unused embryos from women prior to undergoing fertility
procedures. If women knew the suffering endured by fetuses in experimental laboratories,
few would be willing to sell their offspring to research institutes.
The Washington Post
noted the removal of an obscure but important ethical requirement in the Bush
stem cell policy:
SOME CLINTON RULES RELAXED
�But on the question of embryo procurement, the Bush plan demands only
that donors at fertility clinics give �proper informed consent,� without defining
what that means. By contrast, the Clinton rules specified in great detail how
the informed consent process should proceed. It demanded that consent documents
use specific wording to ensure that women did not feel coerced to donate their
embryos. �In addition, the Clinton rules
also required that only frozen embryos be used for research so that embryos would
not be taken just as a woman was undergoing in vitro fertilization�an emotionally
vulnerable time that ethicists have said should be off-limits to researchers seeking
embryos. Bush has made no mention of such a restriction.� 7. A
further concession to the biomedical industry, Bush�s policy allows for 60 human
embryonic stem cell lines to be eligible for federally funded research; however,
stem cell specialists say they are aware of only 10 or 15 lines.
There is some speculation that this means permission to use cell lines
that were formerly ineligible on ethical grounds: �For all the restrictions President
Bush imposed on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, he also
made a little-noticed policy change that in one area makes his rules more permissive
than those of President Bill Clinton.
�THAT POLICY CHANGE � the
removal of strict ethics guidelines governing the procurement of stem cell-laden
embryos from fertility clinics � means that colonies of cells that had flunked
the Clinton administration�s ethics guidelines will now be eligible for use
in federally funded studies. �The
subtle but potentially significant difference between the Bush and Clinton rules
was one of several areas that federal officials tried to clarify yesterday in
the aftermath of the stem cell announcement, highlighting some of the perils that
Bush faced as he navigated through the sensitive, high-profile issue.
�The
long-awaited announcement drew a range of reactions, but seemed, at least for
the moment, to quell a drive in Congress to demand more funding for stem cell
research, which scientists hope will lead to new treatments for a wide range of
diseases. �Much
of the reaction focused on Bush�s decision to limit federal subsidies to existing
cell lines, with some scientists challenging the administration�s estimate of
how many lines actually exist and questioning how useful those lines will be. �On the whole, Bush�s new
stem cell rules are far more restrictive than the ones Clinton had put in place
because they limit research to cells derived from embryos that were destroyed
before Bush made his announcement� SOME CELL LINES GRANDFATHERED
IN �Others said that in any case,
Bush�s dilution of the ethics rules was disturbing. ��It�s very troubling to
find that this policy may actually grandfather in cell lines that were ineligible
on ethical grounds even under the Clinton guidelines,� said Richard Doerflinger
of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which opposes federal funding of human
embryo stem cell research. ��To be sure, our moral objection
has not centered on how informed the parents� consent is,� Doerflinger said,
noting that it focuses instead on the well-being of the embryos. �But at least
the Clinton guidelines spelled all this out. This is distressing.� �Bush�s statement Thursday
that there are 60 human embryonic stem cell lines already in existence eligible
for study with federal funds under the new plan caught many researchers by surprise.
Even specialists in the field had been unaware there were more than 10 or 15 lines. �Lana Skirbol, NIH director
of science policy, said the number Bush referred to was derived from a recent
intensive round of inquiries to laboratories around the world by the agency. Many
more lines are in existence than previously believed, she said, with several being
kept behind closed doors to protect commercial and proprietary interests.� 8. Finally,
the Washington Post reporter pointed out an obvious conflict of interest for Secretary
of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson. As former governor of Wisconsin,
Thompson helped to create the University of Wisconsin
Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) which controls most of the known stem cell
lines in the U.S. The new Bush stem cell policy, which places the condition that
federal funding will only be available for research on stem cells already extracted,
gives the advantage to private sector research institutes such as WARF which operate
without restraint. WISCONSIN CONNECTION �A large percentage of the
revenue that will come from federally funded research on existing stem cell lines
will end up paying for these companies� patents on stem cell research... �WARF may literally own all
of those existing cell lines Bush refers to - and may stand to build a research
empire from the royalties and �reach through agreement� that ensures that
it owns essentially anything created from its cells. �If embryos discarded after
IVF had been used, Wisconsin would have made little from stem cell research. Instead,
under Bush policy, there will be a tariff on any research and it will be gathered
almost exclusively by the home state of one of his senior cabinet officials. �It does not look good, but
more important it is not good policy, setting a bad precedent for the ownership
of basic science by small companies. President Bush must insist that federal dollars
not go to pay for patents on stem cell lines.� 9. Geron Corporation,
which is attempting to clone human embryos, financed the first research of human
embryo experiments in 1998 at WARF. The ramifications of a private monopoly on
stem cell and other forms of fetal research/experimentation, including research
on live fetuses and the creation of human clones for private purposes, are profoundly
disturbing. Few people realize that a foundation
is being laid for a massive Nazi-style eugenics program, where the unthinkable
becomes acceptable even by Christians, as happened in Nazi Germany.
Another fact of which pro-life Christians are generally unaware is that
the father of George W. Bush (Skull & Bones, 1968), George Herbert Walker
Bush (Skull & Bones, 1948), deregulated fetal research during his term as
president. Add to this the fact that the president�s grandfather, Prescott Bush
(Skull & Bones, 1917), was a director of the Union Banking Corporation, which
held $3 million of Nazi funds until the U.S. government seized Union's assets
under the Trading with the Enemy Act. 10. Two
short articles and a book recommendation are appended below to put Christians
in possession of some facts on the stem cell/fetal research issue which reveal
the true character of President Bush�s policy. May our stand on pro-life issues
never be removed from the command of God - thou shalt not kill - to embrace political
compromises. Tim and Barbara
Aho timbarbaho@teadc.com
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED:
Beyond
Abortion: A Chronicle of Fetal Experimentation, Suzanne Rini, Magnificat Press,
1988, TAN Books & Publishers, 1993. Available
at Amazon.com
Book
Description: Documents the merciless
experiments on human infants scheduled for abortion, the removal of organs and
body tissue from still-living fetal infants, and the live �harvesting� of
their organs for the use of others, showing that these activities are becoming
increasingly accepted by doctors and researchers today and are going on quietly
with almost no restriction. Mrs. Rini, initially skeptical that these things were
actually happening, began investigating fetal experimentation and uncovered a
network of medical researchers, hidden from public view, whose work is preparing
us for a free-fall into eugenic engineering - featuring mandatory elimination
of the �defective� and the �unwanted.� Among other things, Mrs. Rini explains
how live aborted fetuses are obtained for research and how genetic screening is
used to push selective abortion of the �genetically inferior.� She shows the
horrendous moral implications of these growing practices and concludes that they
form �the new barbarism� of our age. This is the only book on the subject
in print and a real awakener. Fetal experimentation may just be the barbarity
that brings down the whole abortion business. Review
from the Publisher, March 6, 2001
BEYOND ABORTION�A Chronicle
of Fetal Experimentation. Suzanne Rini. The only book we know on the subject of
harvesting fetal organs from the living children after they are aborted. Uncovers
the network of medical researchers, hidden from the public view, whose work seems
to be preparing us for a Nazi-like eugenics program, featuring mandatory elimination
of the handicapped, before and after birth. The barbarity of this activity beggars
description or condemnation!
Bush
says he�d veto broader stem-cell funding Source: MSNBC August 10 President
Bush's decision to allow federal funding of limited embryonic stem cell research
will nudge forward work now underway in corporate-funded labs... A total ban
on federal funding would not have stopped embryonic stem-cell research, and it
would have had no impact on scientists working only with non-government funding.
Instead, Bush's policy will impose limits only on scientists who accept federal
funding. In exchange for the federal support, they will be banned from harvesting
new stem cells from embryos and confined to studying cells generated in already
existing projects. Stem
cells derived from human embryos already have been created by researchers at various
U.S. institutions, including Johns Hopkins, the University of Wisconsin and the
Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Norfolk, Va. Last month, a team of scientists
at the Jones Institute used private funds to create human embryos for the sole
purpose of obtaining their stem cells, apparently the first time this had been
done. The Jones Institute used in vitro fertilization to create the embryos. Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Mass.,
is preparing to produce the world's first cloned human embryos, from which it
will extract stem cells. "SPARE" EMBRYOS Research:
University of Wisconsin researchers have obtained stem cells from 1-week-old embryos
that had been created in fertility clinics by means of in vitro fertilization.
These cells came from "leftover" embryos that were not used by couples
to have children. In order to obtain the stem cells, researchers had to destroy
the embryos. Legal
status: Nine states ban in vitro fertilization embryo research. Wisconsin is not
one of those states. Federal law bans use of federal funds for research in which
embryos are destroyed. Private funding from Geron Corp., a Menlo Park Calif.,
pharmaceutical firm, supported the University of Wisconsin research. There is
no federal ban on such privately funded research. Drawback:
Those who see the embryo as human life and are opposed to destroying it oppose
this type of research. SPECIAL PURPOSE EMBRYOS Research:
The Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Virginia created embryos by means
of in vitro fertilization for the sole purpose of extracting stem cells from them.
In order to obtain the stem cells, researchers had to destroy the embryo. Legal
status: Nine states ban in vitro fertilization embryo research. Virginia is not
one of those states. Federal law bans the use of federal funds for research in
which embryos are destroyed. Private funding supported the Jones Institute research.
There is no federal ban on such privately funded research. Drawback:
Critics of the Jones Institute said it was "ghoulish" to create embryos
knowing they that would be destroyed. CLONED EMBRYOS Research:
A Worcester, Mass., firm, Advanced Cell Technology, is preparing to produce the
world's first cloned human embryos from which it will extract stem cells. The
technique used is not in vitro fertilization, but one called somatic cell nuclear
transfer. Legal
status: On July 31, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would outlaw
cloning of human embryos. The Senate has not yet acted. Drawback: "Creating
cloned embryos in the lab opens the door to a Brave New World and a post-human
future," said Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., the sponsor of the House bill. ABORTED FETUSES Research:
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University took stem cells from 5- to 9-week-old
embryos or fetuses obtained through abortions. Legal
status: It is legal to use aborted fetuses for research purposes. Private funding
from Geron Corp. supported the research. Drawback:
Those who oppose abortion also oppose using aborted fetuses for research purposes.
Tiny
Stem Cell Firm Might Get Windfall http://ajobonline.com/
By
RACHEL SCHEIER Daily News Business Writer Until
last week, Geron was a little-known, thinly funded biotech firm performing research
that few people understood. It featured on its Web site a company photo of its
112 employees smiling on their Silicon Valley office lawn. But
in the last week, Geron has become one of the most talked-about companies in the
United States. That's because Geron is the market leader in research of stem cells
derived from human embryos, which have become the center of a tangled ethical
and political debate. Geron
and companies like it could benefit richly down the road, some experts believe,
from President Bush's decision to allow federal taxpayer money to finance research
into stem cells derived from human embryos. This
type of research could lead to cures for such diseases as cancer and Alzheimer's,
but it has been opposed by some ethicists and religious groups because an embryo
must be destroyed to derive such cells. The
conditions Bush is placing � that only cells already extracted could be used
for federally funded research � may give a boost to private corporate research
that operates under no such restraints. There
aren't many stem cell research outfits, and Geron, based in Menlo Park, Calif.,
is one of only two U.S. companies involved in stem cell work. The other is Advanced
Cell Technology of Worcester, Mass., a private company with about 50 employees.
Neither firm is well-funded. Geron's
shares have had the same roller coaster ride of many high tech companies, soaring
to nearly $70 in March 2000 from $4.20 in August 1998, and back down to $13.95,
off 99 cents, on Friday. The
company describes its goal as developing and marketing treatments for cancer and
degenerative diseases. Stem cells are just a tool. Analysts
have often cautioned that such firms are a risky bet for investors, because any
payoff from their research is questionable and could take decades to materialize.
Indeed, federal funds have long been seen as key to the future of such firms. "We are very pleased," said Thomas
Okarma, Geron's CEO, in a conference call Friday. Okarma has testified repeatedly
before Congress in support of federally funded research. "We expect to be
collaborating with some of those [government-funded] laboratories." One
reason Geron is an important player is that it financed the first research of
human embryo experiments in 1998, at the University of Wisconsin. Federal funding
was not allowed then. The
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and its subsidiary, WiCell, now control most
of the known so-called stem cell lines in the U.S., of which there are only a
few. The foundation has said it intends to make the cells � which can multiply
indefinitely � widely available at reasonable cost. But
both Geron and the foundation already hold patent rights not just to the cells
themselves, but to the varied technologies involved in research of the cells.
Other biotech companies have taken out similar patents on various aspects of stem
cell research. Some
academics and government officials have expressed concern that a fair chunk of
federal research monies might have to be used just to pay licensing fees to such
companies and the University of Wisconsin. "This
is an unprecedented monopoly on basic science," said Glenn McGee, a bioethicist
at the University of Pennsylvania, who added that under Bush's decision, it appeared
that the University of Wisconsin stood to benefit the most. "The
implication is that a few tiny companies essentially own stem cell research,"
McGee said. But
others cautioned it remains unclear how patent law will play out, and how companies
such as Geron will benefit from the government's funding of stem cell research. "This
does not change the nature of what is a very high-risk enterprise," said
Yi Ri, a biotech analyst with Mehta Partners.
ENDNOTES
- �At the
Edge of the Unknown: Assessing the Stem Cell Controversy,� Chuck Colson, 7/13/01,
http://www.christianity.com/CC/article/0,,PTID2228%7CCHID100546%7CCIID739636,00.html
- Prison Fellowship International: Who We Are, http://www.pfi.org/who.htm
- United Nations NGO Database, �Principles
to Be Applied in the Establishment of Consultative Relations,� http://www.unog.ch/ESS_Mission_services/ngo/ecosoc.htm
- President George W. Bush,
�President Bush�s statement on stem cells,� http://www.msnbc.com/news/611953.asp?0cb=-51917069
- �Clinton�s Culture
Of Death Continues: Bush Approves Tax Dollars For Embryo-Killing Research,�
Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum, 7/10/01, http://www.eagleforum.org/news/01-08-10_stem-cell.shtml
- Beyond Abortion: A
Chronicle of Fetal Experimentation, Suzanne Rini, TAN Books & Publishers,
1988, pp. 1-2.
- �A stem cell ethics rule is eased: Bush
decision may add colonies for research,� Rick Weiss, The Washington Post, 7/11/01,
http://www.msnbc.com/news/612477.asp?0cb=-41917069
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- �An American Dynasty: Financier George Herbert Walker provided money
and support for the climb to power,� Michael Kranish, Boston Globe, 4/23/2001, http://www.angelfire.com/hi3/pearly/htmls2/bush-dynasty.html
Global Prayer & Missions Movement Database
ge | 