Daniel Herbster reporting
We again have the privilege to hear from Dr. David Prentice about important bioethical issues. Dr. Prentice has years of teaching and research experience, and he now works for the illustrious Family Research Council in Washington, DC. With President Obama’s recent actions on taxpayer funding of embryo-destroying research, I thought it would be good to hear from our friend and my former teacher.
DH: Dr. Prentice, what exactly did President Obama do in his recent executive order? How will it affect the sanctity of life in this country?
DP: President Obama has removed any restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The previous Bush policy restricted federal funds for those lines (dishes) of human embryonic stem cells that were already in existence on Aug 9, 2001; this allowed funding for the research to proceed, but did not provide any incentive for more embryo destruction. Now, any lines can receive federal funding, no matter when the embryo was destroyed, and no matter how the embryo was produced. This would mean even for cases in the future, and for embryos created by cloning, or for human-animal hybrid embryos.
DH: It seems ironic that the President would chose to announce his new policy on embryonic stem cell research a matter of weeks after a major breakthrough in ethically produced induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC). Could you tell us what exactly these researchers accomplished and how does it relate to the push for more embryonic stem cell research?
DP: Recently scientists at MIT showed that they could produce these induced stem cells (iPS cells) directly from a Parkinson’s patient, and make the type of neurons in the lab that are missing in the patient. They are still years or decades away from ever using these cells in a patient, but it illustrates the ease with which these iPS cells can be produced, producing cells for study in the laboratory, and all without the use of embryos, eggs, or cloning.
DH: In his remarks President Obama claimed to oppose “human cloning.” What do you think he meant by this statement and do you believe he is being completely accurate?
DP: What he specifically said was that he was opposed to “cloning for human reproduction.” That simply means cloning to produce a live born human clone. But he fully supports cloning human embryos for experiments, what some call “clone and kill” experiments. The Executive Order itself calls for support of stem cell research “to the extent permitted by law”; there are no federal laws against human cloning or animal-human hybrids.
DH: We’ve been hearing rumblings from the usual suspects in Congress (Rep. DeGette, Sen. Specter, etc.) about legislation to fully fund embryo-destroying research. Are there any differences between this legislation and what Obama has already done? What are the dangers of this legislation?
DP: The current bills filed in both the House and the Senate actually don’t go as far as President Obama’s order. The bills focus only on the so-called “leftover” embryos at fertility clinics, while as noted, the President’s order would include cells from clones.
DH: Are there any positive bills in Congress on this issue that conservatives should support?
DP: The Patient’s First Act, HR 877, by Rep. Lipinski & Rep. Forbes, would focus the priority of stem cell research funding on that research already showing real promise, to get treatments to patients as soon as possible.
DH: In your expert opinion, do you believe embryo-destructive forms of stem cell research are necessary for finding cures and treatments?
DP: Not at all. There is already abundant evidence that adult stem cells, including umbilical cord blood, has already shown documented results in thousands of patients for dozens of diseases and conditions. If we really cared about the patients, we’d be focusing all of our resources on adult stem cells.
In point of fact, all five diseases mentioned in the President's speech as perhaps someday in the distant future being addressed by embryonic stem cells (spinal cord injury, juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's disease, cancer, heart disease), have already seen published results of helping patients using adult stem cells. These are peer-reviewed results benefitting real patients.
DH: What are the differences between embryonic, adult, and induced pluripotent stem cells?
DP: Embryonic stem cells come from destruction of young human embryos. They are difficult to control in their growth and differentiation, and tend to form tumors.
Induced pluripotent stem cells are made by adding a few genes to a normal cell, such as a skin cell, “reprogramming” the cell to act just like an embryonic stem cell, but without the use of embryos, eggs, or cloning. So they can be ethically and easily created for lab study.
Adult stem cells come from tissues and fluids of the body, including bone marrow, brain tissue, blood, umbilical cord blood, placenta, and even amniotic fluid. They can be isolated without harming the donor, and are more mature and controlled in their growth, as well as functioning as repair cells for the repair of tissue damage.
DH: What would you recommend our readers do to oppose unethical research? How could our readers find out more about this issue?
DP: Contact the White House and let the President know you disagree with his decision.
Contact your elected representatives and urge them to oppose more embryo research, and instead to support the Patients First Act and more funding for adult stem cells, so that treatments can be developed.
DH: What’s next? How do you think proponents of unethical forms of research (embryonic stem cells, human cloning, human-animal hybrid cloning, etc.) will proceed in the future?
DP: The current presidential order only makes funding available for embryonic stem cell research after embryo destruction. There will likely be an assault on the Dickey-Wicker amendment, which prohibits federal funding for the actual creation and destruction of embryos for experiments. This would mean taxpayer dollars would actually fund embryo cloning and killing.
DH: Dr. Prentice, thanks so much for lending us your time and expertise. Keep up the great work!
Note: The views of any interviewee do not necessarily reflect the views of AdvanceUSA.