Editorials, Opinion Pieces Respond To Senate Approval Of Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, HOPE Act

Several newspapers this week published editorials related to the Senate votes on Wednesday to pass two stem cell research-related bills. Federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research is allowed only for research using embryonic stem cell lines created on or before Aug. 9, 2001, under a policy announced by President Bush on that date. The Senate voted 63-34 to pass a bill (S 5) that would expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The bill, called the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, would allow federal funding for research using stem cells derived from human embryos originally created for fertility treatments and willingly donated by patients. The Senate measure differs from a House-approved bill (HR 3) of the same name because it includes language that would require NIH to research and fund methods of creating embryonic stem cell lines without destroying embryos. Bush has threatened to veto the bill. The Senate also voted 70-28 to pass a bill (S 30) that would allow federal funding for stem cell research using embryos with no chance of survival. The legislation, known as the HOPE Act, would fund research on stem cells taken from "dead" human embryos or extracted from living embryos without destroying them. In addition, it would allow federal funding for research on stem cell lines derived from embryos that are not likely to survive during the freezing process or in the womb. According to Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), the measure also would promote research using stem cells derived from other sources, such as amniotic fluid (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 4/12). Summaries appear below.

Editorials
Boston Globe: President Bush should "think twice" before vetoing the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, a Globe editorial says. "For basic research in an area as innovative as embryonic stem cells, generous government funding is crucial," the editorial says, concluding, "Republicans who understand the effect this issue had on the 2006 election should talk sense to him and persuade him that the health of millions, and of his own party, would benefit if he reverses his position" (Boston Globe, 4/15).

Los Angeles Times: Bush's "compromise" on embryonic stem cell research "was bad science and bad policy on the day it was announced, and it hasn't improved with time," a Times editorial says. Although Bush "isn't known for re-examining previous positions," he should "make amends" for his veto last year of a measure similar to the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and sign the new bill, according to the editorial (Los Angeles Times, 4/12).














New York Times: "Concerned voters will need to ratchet up the pressure on recalcitrant Republicans to help stop" Bush "from killing the second enlightened stem cell bill in less than a year," according to a Times editorial. Bush and social conservatives are "trying to impose their moral code on the rest of the nation and stand in the way of scientific progress," the editorial says, adding that the HOPE Act is a "poorly considered proposal that can only be deemed a diversion from the main business at hand -- the need to free American science from the chains imposed by the president" (New York Times, 4/13).

Washington Post: It is "disappointing" that the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act "will almost certainly not become law," and Senate debate on the measure also was "frustrating," a Post editorial says. Many of the bill's supporters during the Senate debate "rightly pointed to the scientific consensus on the potential of embryonic stem cell research to lead to medical breakthroughs," but their accounts of "ill relatives or constituents ... verge on overselling," according to the Post. "Worse were the rhetorical manipulations by the bill's opponents," including Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who implied that funding embryonic stem cell research "would steal money from the most promising stem cell research," according to the editorial. Federal funding should be "open to supporting as many avenues of stem cell research as a considered look at the morality of the issue allows," the editorial concludes (Washington Post, 4/13).

Opinion Pieces
John Gill/Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), Wall Street Journal: Nonviable embryos originally created for in vitro fertilization that are not "suitable" for implantation or freezing might become the "middle ground" that would give researchers "the stem cells they need to realize medical discoveries, while still recognizing and preserving the sanctity of life," Gill, chair of the Texas Healthcare Task Force, and Sessions write in a Journal opinion piece. According to Gill and Sessions, the cells of "defective, nonviable embryos could be donated" for stem cell research with ethical safeguards in place. The approach "merits further discussion," the authors write, adding that "with appropriate safeguards," it "could satisfy the demands of all concerned parties" (Gill/Sessions, Wall Street Journal, 4/14).

Carrie Gordon Earll, Los Angeles Times: "[T]he public has a right to know we can pursue ethical treatments without sacrificing young humans on the altar of science," Gordon Earll, senior bioethics analyst for Focus on the Family Action, writes in a Times letter to the editor. According to Gordon Earll, the country should fund adult stem cell research, which has "already proven effective" (Gordon Earll, Los Angeles Times, 4/15).


"Reprinted with permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.