Republicans 'Would Be Stupid Not To' Embrace New Stem Cell Technique

I recently spoke with Fr. Thomas Berg, Executive Director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person, a Catholic Ethics think-tank, about today's stem cell announcement and whether he thinks Republican Presidential Candidates will embrace the new technology. He told me they would be stupid not to.

Republican Presidential Candidates face a stark choice today: embrace today's new stem cell technique or accept that they are encouraging the destruction of human embryos, and possibly human cloning.

Many of them have shied away from supporting embryonic stem cell (ESC) research in the past because they object to the destruction of human embryos when the stem cells are derived. They generally refuse to accept that ESC research offers some benefits not available with adult stem cells, or they will raise the specter of immune rejection if ESCs are used.

The best known hope for overcoming potential immune rejection is somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Popularly known as therapeutic cloning, scientists hope that the technique can one day be used to create disease-specific stem cell lines for research purposes and patient-specific stem cell lines for treatment.

iPS cells, thanks to their pluripotent, self-renewing nature, have the most potential to be effective replacements for ESCs. If Republican candidates refuse to embrace this advance, it would seem to be an implicit acknowledgement that the current system, whereby embryos are destroyed for their stem cells, is fine with them.

Last week's primate cloning announcement stoked new fears among cloning opponents that human cloning would arrive soon. As the only alternative that promises the same advantages as SCNT, rejecting the technology behind iPS cells would be an implicit acknowledgement of their ambivalence, if not support, for the continued research into SCNT.

Fr. Berg agreed to an interview, conducted via e-mail, and provided some rather direct answers.

Wired News: Research published today proves that it is possible to reprogram adult cells into an embryonic-like state without creating, harming, or destroying an embryo. These induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, though not exactly like ESCs, carry many of the same benefits. Do you think this research changes the debate?

Father Thomas Berg: I think it changes the science dramatically, and therefore, the debate. I have heard of numerous labs gearing up to do re-programming. This is not going to be the next stem-cell gimmick. You heard Ian Wilmut say: "this is the future of stem cell research" and Thomson affirm that his reprogrammed cells essentially match up—in terms of pluripotency—to some of the same cell lines he himself created or at least to his own original standards of pluripotency. So, yes, this not only changes the debate, it my very well eliminate debate: who wants to argue the merits of uncontroversial, cutting edge research that can perhaps lead to cures some day?

WN: The concept of reprogramming an adult cell into an iPS cell was formally acknowledged by the President's Council on Bioethics in May 2005, but the President and other politicians opposed to ESC research have largely ignored it during the stem cell debates. What has prevented opponents from using this, arguably their best defense against the need for embryo-destructive derivation methods, over the years?

FTB: Just to clarify, the Bush administration was really hoping that Congress could see their way clear to passing legislation to direct NIH funding to research on these alternatives. When that failed twice, then the Pres did take the measure of signing an executive order last June. So, I have always considered that the President fully embraced these initiatives and to the extent possible incorporated them into his domestic policy.

Additionally, Governor Mitt Romney, to his credit, has embraced an unambiguous and principled stance on the alternatives. See here.

Here I can only speculate that others were hedging their bets, or did not understand the science (both Bush and Romney do understand the science to an exceptional degree as far as I can tell), or were squeamish on their convictions about the moral status of the human embryo, or simply had not taken the time or interest in thinking these issues through. For many, as you suggest, it really was a lost opportunity.

WN: Was there any major push for politicians to support this research by opponents of ESC research? If so, how was the concept received?

FTB: Steven, my institute led an interdisciplinary team of scientists and moral theologians to evaluate one of the proposals: altered nuclear transfer. In private interaction with the administration we found a great openness to the notion of alternatives. Part of that story is told here.

WN: Opponents of ESC research—including some Presidential candidates—are fond of referencing David Prentice's list of 73 adult stem cell treatments as "proof" that funding ESC research is not necessary. Do you think ESC opponents will use this same argument to oppose research on iPS cells?

FTB: Opponents of embryo-destructive stem cell research have no reasons to oppose works on iPSCs. So, any opposition would be dumb-founded. I have respectfully begged to disagree with pro-lifers who insist that embryonic stem cell research is "not necessary." If ESC research did not involve the destruction of embryos, they would not be saying that. The science of pluripotent stem cell research is valid, and it can now move ahead an ethically unproblematic way: that's a win-win for everyone.

WN: Speaking of Presidential candidates, do you think they will embrace this new research?

__FTB: __Romney will, and very vocally so. The others would be stupid not to. You can quote me on that.

A brief exchange, but I was impressed. The Thornwood, NY-based think-tank he directs has fought for alternative methods of deriving ESCs for over 3 years, going against the grain of most pro-life organizations.

I hope the Republican Presidential Candidates do embrace the reprogramming technique, so that science can move forward no matter who wins the 2008 election.

See Also:

• Stem Cell Breakthrough Is Like 'Turning Lead Into Gold'
• Dolly Designer: Cloning for Stem Cells Is so 1997
• Primate Cloning "Like Breaking The Sound Barrier"
• Only the Cloned Die Young
• Science Wins! Human Skin Reprogrammed Into Stem Cells