What Can You Do About It?

Respond to an article or write about a new topic

incitemagazine Web

The Many Implications of Federal Policy on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Since last July, bills to initiate federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (ESCr) have come up twice in Congress.  The funding bills received majority support both times they were voted on in the House as well as in the single vote in the Senate, but the one bill that has passed both sections of Congress was vetoed by President Bush.  Nevertheless, policy makers are slowly working towards consensus on ESCr.  The Republican Party no longer seamlessly supports President Bush’s refusal to broaden federal funding for the research.¹   As federal funding for embryonic stem cell research becomes increasingly supported by both liberals as well as fiscal conservatives, it is imperative that all American citizens recognize the full implications this decision—scientifically, politically and discursively--if they want a just federal ESCr policy enacted.

On Nov. 6, 1998, James A. Thomson’s University of Wisconsin research team, privately funded by the Geron Corporation, announced they had discovered a process that derives renewable,² pluripotent³ human stem cells from human embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures.⁴ Suddenly, two values that had previously existed in relatively separate spheres of American society became forced into a zero-sum game with each other.  One of these values is the absolute sanctity of nascent life.  The other value holds scientific research as a morally requisite means of pursuing societal progress. Of note, different Americans hold this second value for two different reasons: because progress makes society happier and healthier,⁵ and because progress provides economic growth.⁶

Before the emergence of the discourse on human embryonic stem cell research, the values of the absolute sanctity of nascent life and the progression of society through scientific research rarely seemed so contradictory.⁷ It was the discourse about ESCr that explicitly brought these moral concepts into direct, public, and political competition with each other.  With the emergence of the ESCr discourse, society could no longer uphold both of these values at the same time; because of this contradiction, Americans and their politicians became dichotomized over this issue.  Hence, because each side of this dichotomized discourse essentially knew that their respective values held fundamental moral significance, these two groups proceeded to enter into what would ultimately be a zero-sum game with great stakes.  Ultimately, the side whose values are supported by policy makers will find redemption in being able to shape the course of American society.  More importantly, they will be redeemed in that their moral knowledge, which underpins their worldview, will also be upheld within American society at large.

Hence, to explain the implications of federally funding embryonic stem cell research, it is important to understand why Americans have come to hold the values they do--how the knowledge supporting these worldviews has developed as well as what its significance is to those who deeply hold their knowledge as truth.  Quite clearly, Americans’ political valuation that equates the moral worth of nascent life with the moral worth of fully human life stems from our incredibly controversial debate over abortion.  To those who hold nascent human life as being absolutely sacred, the Supreme Court’s legalization of abortion devalued the sanctity of human life; but, perhaps more significantly, in doing that, they also devalued the role of pregnancy, motherhood and ‘the family’ in American society.  Kristin Luker shows this in Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood; specifically, she shows that the abortion debate has not solely, or even primarily, been about preserving the absolute sanctity of nascent life for the sake of upholding the ethical integrity of our society. Rather, the controversial nature of the public discourse on the moral status of nascent life has been primarily driven by the societal implications of devaluing nascent life—namely, that to devalue nascent life also devalues pregnancy, the traditional conception of motherhood and, thereby, also devalues the traditional conception of the family. For people who have centered their lives around a belief in the importance of these traditional institutions, such devaluations are very scary.

While it is easy to see the political root of the debate on nascent life, the widespread belief in the value of scientific research as the ultimate means of societal progress is a trickier matter to pin down.  Bioethicist Daniel Callahan helps clarify the origin of this value in our culture by drawing back to a particularly formative moment in American history.  Puzzled by the seeming existence of a “research imperative” with regard to biomedical science in American society, Callahan looks to history to explain how biomedical research and innovation came to be “put on such a high pedestal” in American politics.⁸  Although the concept of technological progress has been imbued into the American ethic perhaps since America’s conception, these values have not always driven federal funding priorities as they do now.

In identifying this transition in the political arena towards explicitly valuing progress, Callahan makes note of “two wealthy philanthropists, Mary Lasker and Florence Mahoney” who, in the 1950s, first used the now “tried and true methods” of campaigning for the federal funding of scientific research.⁹  He explains that “their key tactic was to put together a coalition of prominent scientists, politicians, business people, and celebrities, the amassing of a war chest to pay for publicity, and a skilled use of the media.” Callahan thus attributes their pro-science efforts as being a major reason for the drastic inflation of the NIH budget in the 1950s and 1960s.¹⁰  He further notes that this multi-faceted tactic “worked well in the 1950s and it worked no less well as the 1990s drew to a close.”¹¹  These publicity machines certainly continue today; they are well funded by capitalists such as Bill Gates and are notably supported by celebrities such as Christopher Reeves, Michael J. Fox and Nancy Reagan.¹²

Hence, these campaigns of the ever-entrepreneurial and capitalistic biomedical industry have played a great role in the solidification of scientific value in American society.  Noting this, Callahan writes that scientific research should not be seen as an imperative “moral obligation” for progress.¹³    According to Callahan, the “research imperative” should not, for example, trump “the provision of health care to all citizens regardless of their ability to pay.”¹⁴

If America’s policy makers decide to allow for the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, their decision will have a number of important implications for science, politics, and the discourse over issues related to ESCr—specifically abortion and public health issues—in American society.  First, a decision to support embryonic stem cell research through federal funding would significantly affect the public discourse over issues related to embryonic stem cell research, such as abortion.  Because of this connection (where both abortion and ESCr challenge the absolute sanctity of nascent life), should Congress set a legal precedent supporting the relative moral status of nascent life, such a political decision will likely have an affect over the public discourse and federal policy on abortion.  It would be telling of the waning political power held by those who believe in the absolute sanctity of nascent life (i.e., religious conservatives and others looking to uphold traditional family values throughout society); it would signal the decline of their influence over federal policy in general and perhaps even result in the diminishment of what ownership they hold over abortion policy—namely, in ensuring that the abortion issue remains controversial and not publicly funded—in the long run.  While a victory for advocates of federal funding for ESCr would not exactly be a victory for women’s right to choose, it would be detrimental to the political influence of and social respect given to those holding a pro-life worldview who are currently in lock step with advocates of women’s choice.

Additionally, such a decision would ensure that America maintains its dominance in the global field of biomedical research.  The best scientists would remain in America and Americans would likely be the first to benefit from ESCr if that research results in therapeutic benefits.  Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research would also hopefullymean that the benefits of this research (if and when they materialize, likely in the relatively distant future¹⁵ ) be at least more widely spread throughout society, not just exclusively limited to those able to pay for it; it would mean that the research would be done primarily in the nation’s University system rather than the private sector, and that the public sector would have at least some say in what happens with the ultimate results of the research.

Finally, funding federal stem cell research will further confirm the public’s perception of scientific research as a morally imperative pursuit. The decision would advance the currently dominant view in American society with regard to biomedical research—that such research must be well funded because it will only lead to a state of better public health and a better economy.  

Yet, while Americans of all sorts are attracted to the idea of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research because scientists say that this research has the potential to cure diseases and make people healthier, ESCr is not being framed as an issue of public health in the public discourse.  If maximizing the public’s health is indeed our primary concern regarding embryonic stem cell research, we must encourage the media and our politicians to think about and speak about embryonic stem cell research as simply one way (and a risky, long-term, expensive way, at that) to go about addressing America’s public health concerns.  If congress approves less restricted funding for embryonic stem cell research before seriously considering a bill addressing the nation’s access to health care, it will do a disservice to the now 47 million Americans (or approximately one sixth of the national population) who lack health insurance.

To ensure the discourse on ESCr continues more critically, in a manner that thoroughly addresses the interests of the entire general public—not just of scientists or those favoring traditional values—we must be more cognizant of the frames used by the media in speaking of embryonic stem cell research.  Often times, what the media does not address is just as important as what they do address.  In the controversial political discourse over ESCr, journalists have repeatedly pitted the potential of research to cure humanity against the sanctity of nascent life.  But neither the media nor most politicians have addressed the many other ways that the federal government might spend our tax dollars to make American society healthier and happier.  In such a debate, how do the media and politicians not talk about health?

Americans need the media and politicians to be asking questions like: is funding embryonic stem cell research—and, even more broadly, biomedical research in general—necessarily the best way (considering its costs, its risks and the long-term nature of its returns) for the government to be addressing public health issues such as ADHD, diabetes or even Parkinson’s?  Which public health problems might be addressed more effectively through means other than through science or in conjuncture with science?  What are the opportunity costs of making embryonic stem cell research a political priority—what are we not spending money on by funding this research, and what are we not talking about when we discuss this research?  These issues have not widely been addressed but must be considered if a responsible policy on embryonic stem cell research is to be enacted.

⁷ Here, it is pertinent to note that the discourse on ESCr has been largely shaped by the discourse on the embryo-destructive human embryo research (HEr) before it. The HEr discourse began slowly in the early 1970s following Roe v. Wade, but never reached anywhere close to the level of controversy achieved by the ESCr discourse.

⁸ Callahan unpublished, p. 7.

⁹ Callahan unpublished, p. 7.

¹⁰ Callahan 2003, p. 21.

¹¹ Callahan unpublished, p. 7.

¹² As this article explains with regard to the campaign to pass California’s 2004 ESCr state funding proposition (Proposition 71) , “A coalition of Hollywood producers and actors, technology billionaires, scientists, patient advocates and business organizations - including Michael J. Fox and Bill Gates - has marshaled emotion, scientific argument and money to underwrite a state ballot proposal that would let Californians make the decision [whether to fund ESCr].”

Sean McClellan is a Sociology and Economics double-major at Wesleyan University.  He is currently writing his sociology senior thesis on the moral knowledge at work in the public discourse over embryonic stem cell research.  Aside from this, Sean is interested in exploring social mechanisms of exclusion, and also in the media’s role in production and distribution of knowledge as a mode of hegemonic domination.  He can be reached at smcclellan@wesleyan.edu.