The Stem Cell Compromise?

We can find a way to put down the political football and start getting real research done.

By Jonas Singer, Johns Hopkins University

The various initiatives about stem cell research being tossed around Capitol Hill these days often signal, unfortunately, little more than political gamesmanship. Politicians on both sides of the issue rarely compromise, proposing unpassable legislation that allows everyone to return to their constituents claiming they fought for what is right when, in fact, they did little to change anything.

Take, for example, the Castle-DeGette legislation that recently passed in the House. The bill updates stem cell policy by providing federal funds to stem cell research that destroys human embryos, with various restrictions. The embryos must have been created for reproduction, must be in excess of the clinical need, and the donation of embryos must not benefit the donors financially or otherwise. The Castle-DeGette legislation does not promote creating any more embryos than already exist, but now, the embryos that would otherwise be lost during the process of in vitro fertilization would be used for important scientific purposes. A great, important piece of legislation – but unpassable.

While the bill passed by the comfortable majority of 238-194, that isn’t close to the two-thirds majority that would be enough to override a promised Bush veto.

So we need to compromise on this issue if we want to pick up the pace of progress with stem cell research and ensure widespread public support. While the crux of this issue lays in whether or not one considers an embryo to be a life, this isn’t a question that is going to be solved on Capitol Hill right now.

Embryos do have significant moral status. The possible termination of a life, even a nascent one, is an act that deserves the serious reflection it has received. Yet, embryonic stem cell research doesn’t have blood on its hands. Instead, it is the inefficiency of in vitro fertilization (IVF) which creates the potential of discarding viable human embryos. (Remember, embryos typically die after a week if not implanted in the mother’s uterus or frozen.)

IVF clinics typically superovulate women in order to generate as many eggs as possible. Typically, more eggs than will be needed are fertilized to provide a surplus number of embryos, meaning that anywhere from several to several dozen eggs might be fertilized. On average, only three embryos are transferred to the woman. Statistics show that 50% of all these embryo transfers lead to pregnancy. Do the math. The procedure often leaves more than a dozen embryos unused. These embryos are either discarded or frozen for reuse.

It is unacceptable in the eyes of many—and certainly this administration—to destroy embryonic human life. However, the ethical nature of IVF, which is the true cause of so much destruction of nascent life, is not in question. IVF is not wrong or morally failing; the ability to give infertile couples and mothers the opportunity to bear children is important and positive. Yet the fact remains that excess embryos are necessarily produced in order to achieve a reasonable chance of success.

Focusing on IVF could create an opportunity to stop using stem cell research as a political football and find a useful comprise that will prevent a Bush veto and allow the Castle-DeGette legislation to be enacted. The last time we witnessed a stem cell compromise was in the President’s Council on Bioethics’ report on stem cell research. In 2001, President Bush announced that he would allow federal funding to go to research only on stem cell lines already in existence. At the time of the announcement, scientists questioned the actual existence of all of these stem cell lines, asserting that only 30 were known to exist in the United States. No funding would be given for research on stem cells derived after August 9, 2001. The chairman, Leon Kass, who is widely recognized as a bioconservative, and is vehemently opposed to stem cell research, recognized the standing policy as a compromise that allows for funding important research without condoning the further use of embryos. But this compromise isn’t good enough.

Let’s come to another bipartisan compromise that will again allow Conservatives to feel their moral stance has been considered while also promoting medical advances that we critically need. The compromise then is this: Use federal funds to support embryonic stem cell research using recently and currently frozen embryos (according to the parameters the Castle-DeGette bill outlines); however, in extending federal funding for this, also extend federal funding for research on IVF and other assisted reproduction technologies and educating potential embryo donors, and assemble an oversight committee for embryonic stem cell research and assisted reproduction.

Allot money for research into improving the efficiency and efficacy of IVF. By improving the rate of live births per transfer, fewer embryos need be created and, thus, fewer will end up being destroyed.

Provide funding for research into the use, viability, and longevity of frozen embryos so that clinics and consumers will be more aware of the benefits and facts of using frozen embryos. In addition, allot money for research into alternative means of assisted reproduction that entail higher rates of success.

The current legislation allows individuals who have undergone IVF and have embryos in excess of their need to donate these embryos to stem cell research. Maintain this policy; however, make mandatory a short course on embryo donation. This course would include information on the usefulness and success of embryo donation for use by other hopeful women, the path of the embryo when donated to either research or future use, and an introduction to the ethical debate surrounding their decision.

Lastly, commission a federal oversight committee to monitor all assisted reproduction and stem cell research. This committee would not have the jurisdiction to act, but would serve to raise issues, bring new knowledge to light, and ensure that all steps are being taken to reduce the number of embryos destroyed, be it for research or otherwise.

Even though large numbers of embryos are destroyed due to the overall inefficiency of in vitro fertilization, the process is widely accepted as being morally and ethically acceptable and is, of course, legal. Embryonic stem cell research, then, is not the root cause of the destruction of embryos. Rather it is IVF, an accepted and permitted practice, that is directly responsible. Policy should address these shortcomings while allowing embryonic stem cell research to proceed.

The policy outlined above will be a boon for everyone: Embryonic stem cell research will flourish under federal funding. By putting much of the research under the umbrella of federal funding, the federal government and the American public will have a say in the ethical considerations of conducting such research. In addition, by including the amendments suggested above, the administration can still maintain that the moral sanctity of embryonic life cannot be trifled with and that it will do everything it can to defend nascent human life. Yet, if the Bush administration shows the wisdom to allow this bill to go into effect, it will have finally accepted the reality of IVF and allowed the many embryos that are destroyed to be used for a purpose rather than terminated in vain.

Jonas Singer graduated with the class of ’04 from Washington University in St. Louis with degrees in philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience.  He is currently pursuing his Masters in Government from Johns Hopkins while working with the Center.

Related Stories

• Gender-Neutral Housing Comes to Princeton
• Campaign Communications Director, Repower America
• Toke Up Marijuana Laws
• Send a Health Care E-Card
• The Battle for Pittsburgh