Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsNational

Stem cells and politics -- a primer

By Michael Muskal|March 10, 2009

Reporting from Los Angeles — President Obama today lifted restrictions on the federal funding of medical research involving embryonic stem cells. Here is a primer to understanding the hotly contested issue at the intersection of science and politics.

What are embryonic stem cells?


Advertisement

Cells are the basic biological building blocks of all life. Embryonic stem cells are a type of cell that eventually can become specialized cells and tissues needed by the body.

Are there adult stem cells?

Yes. Stem cells harvested from adult tissue are called adult stem cells and are part of the body's repair mechanism. Scientists argue that this type of stem cell is not as useful as the stem cells taken from embryos. Embryonic stem cells can be grown into specialized cells needed for research into conditions such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes and spinal cord injuries.

Where do embryonic stem cells come from?

Embryonic stem cells come from the destruction of days-old embryos. The embryos are usually created by couples as part of fertility treatments. Unused embryos are discarded after they are no longer needed.

What is the politics of the issue?

For those who believe life begins at conception, embryonic stem cell research is equivalent to killing a person in order to develop medical treatments for another person. Those favoring such research argue that the cells are just cells and would be discarded anyway. The research has become tied into the debate over abortion rights.

Is embryonic stem cell research legal?

Yes. The federal aspect of the issue involves the use of taxpayer dollars for pay for the scientific research.

What has Congress done?

Every year since 1996, Congress has approved a ban on using federal dollars to create human embryos, a routine procedure in fertility clinics. The ban also covers research in which embryos are discarded.

What did President Bush do?

President Bush argued that using embryos to create additional stem cell lines was morally wrong and that federal funding should be banned. But in August 2001, President Bush signed an executive order allowing government support for work involving 21 colonies, or lines, of previously extracted embryonic stem cells. The order prohibited funding to researchers to extract more embryonic stem cell lines.

What did President Obama do today?

President Obama signed an executive order reversing Bush's policies. Under the order, scientists can receive federal money for work involving any line of stem cells. The president's action does not change the congressional restrictions.

What is the net effect?

Researchers will be able to get federal funding to use more groups of stem cells. Those lines will come from existing groups beyond the 21 lines previously permitted and from new lines of embryonic stem cells.

What has been the fight over embryonic stem cell research?

The battle has crossed party lines, but in general, Republican conservatives who oppose abortion also oppose federal funding for stem cell research. But there have been notable exceptions. Nancy Reagan, the widow of the former president, supports stem cell research.

Is the issue only about stem cell research?

The executive order only covers stem cell research. But in his remarks, President Obama broadened the issue to explain his administration's policy on science and politics.

What is the difference?

In general, politics is the clash of ideas while science argues that it is only concerned with facts that can be tested in the real world. Obama noted that distinction in his remarks.

"Let's be clear: promoting science isn't just about providing resources - it is also about protecting free and open inquiry," he said. "It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient - especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

michael.muskal@latimes.com

@LATimesmuskal (follow me on Twitter)

Los Angeles Times Articles
|