06/13/2004: "Next up: the repeal of original sin"

Combined and sea freight worldwide. Shipping agency acceptable prices. To judge by John Kerry's official campaign Web site, medical paradise is just around the corner, if only the Neanderthals would get out of the way:

"Today, more than 100 million Americans have illnesses that one day could be cured or treated with stem-cell therapy. Stem cells could replace damaged heart cells or cells destroyed by cancer, offering a new lease on life to those suffering from diseases that once came with a certain death sentence. Stem cells have the power to slow the loss of a grandmother�s memory, calm the hand of an uncle with Parkinson's, save a child from a lifetime of daily insulin shots, or permanently lift a best friend from his wheelchair."

What he means, of course, is embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Adult stem cell research is going on full-bore, and is proving fruitful. ESCR, meanwhile, has so far proven entirely disappointing. Dr. Wolfgang Lillge, writing in 21st Century Science and Technology, says that "Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (death of some of the heart tissue)." Furthermore, he goes on to say that the problems with ESCR are overwhelming, whereas those with adult cells are minimal, hence their use in current therapies. The bottom line: the miracle cures expected form ESCR are very unlikely, certainly within the lifetime of the people whose salvation ESCR is supposed to be.

Recognizing that with progress comes ethical concerns, Kerry said we can resolve them with goodwill and good sense.

"Believe it or not, there was a time when some questioned the morality of heart transplants. Not too long ago, we heard the same kind of arguments against the biotechnology research that now saves stroke victims and those with leukemia."

Believe it or not, Senator, there are lots of folks out here who 1) think there's a big difference between transplanting organs from those who have died and creating human life as a disposable means to an end; and 2) recognize that "goodwill and common sense" are hardly adequate substitutes for rigorous ethical thinking and a recognition that science doesn't always take us where we should go. And by the way, you're going to have to be more specific about the arguments made against other kinds of biotech research. Leaving purely Luddite hysterics aside, I have no idea what you're talking about.

"The medical discoveries that come from stem cell are crucial next steps in humanity's uphill climb. And part of this nation's greatness lies in the fact that we have led the world in great medical discoveries, with our breakthroughs and our beliefs going hand-in-hand. If we pursue the limitless potential of our science�and trust that we can use it wisely�we will save millions of lives and earn the gratitude of future generations."

This reminds me of an exchange from the 50s sci-fi movie The Thing. Idealistic scientist is extolling scientific progress, and mentions that "we split the atom." Cynical reporter interrupts and says, "And that sure made the world happy, didn't it?" I mean, really: the "limitless potential of our science"? When did man become God, Senator? And "trust we can use it wisely"? When was the doctrine of original sin repealed, Senator? We're talking about one of the most potentially destructive technologies imaginable, one that, as a side effect, reduces human life to a tool to be manipulated as we see fit. Personally, I don't see the pie-in-the-sky long-shot possibilities as worth the kind of damage that permitting ESCR would do to a society that has already grown extraordinarily coarse in its attitudes towards life. Especially when there's a safe alternative already available.