Stem cell wars
IT'S WAR, cultural war. Here in Massachusetts the war is currently defined as Kennedy vs. Romney.
The politics of stem cell research, local and national, pulled the Bay State's top political gun, US Senator Edward M. Kennedy, into the battle over proposed legislation to legalize stem cell research in Massachusetts. Kennedy's involvement raises the stakes in an already high-stakes battle to pass legislation and then override a promised veto by Governor Mitt Romney.
Kennedy joined Senate President Robert Travaglini and US Representative Michael Capuano at Wednesday's dedication of Boston's newly renovated Schepens Eye Research Institute, an affiliate of Harvard Medical School dedicated to fighting blindness via new therapies, including stem cells. Kennedy spoke eloquently about the ''life science century" and the legislation necessary to make it reality. While he never mentioned Romney's name until asked afterward about the Republican governor's opposition to the bill, it is clear that Romney is on his mind as well as the broader cultural issues playing out in Washington.
Kennedy warned against efforts to criminalize stem cell research and said needed regulation of such research should not be dictated by ideology or politics. Asked if Romney's opposition is rooted in either, Kennedy said he did not want to talk about the reasons for the governor's opposition, only about his own reasons for supporting the legislation. ''This is the correct position. This is what we ought to follow," he said.
In remarks at the dedication, Kennedy said he stood with Nancy Reagan, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, and Senator Orrin Harch of Utah, national Republican figures who have embraced stem cell research. ''This is about living . . . this is about life . . . this is about hope," he said.
Democrats have overwhelming control in the Massachusetts Senate and House. Travaglini, who made stem cell research a centerpiece of his legislative agenda, had every reason to expect quick victory at Romney's expense and no problems with getting the votes necessary to override a gubernatorial veto. He may still get both. Yesterday the Senate passed the bill 35 to 2. But to do battle, Travaglini turned to Chris Gabrieli, a former Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor, who got behind an advertising campaign to promote the legislation. Then Kennedy entered the fray.
Romney is using stem cell research as a way to stake out conservative turf for a national campaign. Now, with backing from the Catholic Church, Romney is fighting back hard to win the ongoing public relations war. He launched his own radio ad campaign, describing the Senate stem cell measure as a ''radical cloning bill."
The Democratic leadership has also been challenged by some female lawmakers who worry that more embryonic cell research will create a demand for human eggs and potentially lead to the exploitation of women who might risk their health for money they could get by selling their eggs.
But the biggest problem for proponents of stem cell research lies in general confusion over what the proposed legislation would do and why there is such a rush to get it done.
Romney has drawn the battle lines in the public debate by saying he supports stem cell research but opposes ''the cloning of human embryos." Yesterday Kennedy called human cloning ''improper, immoral, and wrong . . . it should be outlawed." Under the bill taken up by the Massachusetts Senate, he said, ''it will be."
Romney supports the use of embryos left over from in vitro fertilization, which might be discarded anyway. He opposes ''therapeutic cloning" or ''somatic cell nuclear transfer." That involves taking the nucleus of a cell such as a skin, heart, or nerve cell and implanting it in a human egg cell that has had its own nucleus removed. The egg would be stimulated to grow in a laboratory dish for several days until it becomes a ball of about 200 cells called a ''blastocyst." Researchers then develop a new batch of embryonic stem cells from this ''blastocyst." The egg is never fertilized, so supporters such as Travaglini and Kennedy say scientists are not creating life.
To write the above paragraph, I drew upon a detailed explanation offered by The Boston Globe. Proponents prefer to talk about stem cell research in connection with medical hope and jobs, and opponents prefer to talk about ethics and respect for life. The scientific distinctions are complex and confusing.
The easiest thing to understand about stem cell research is that it is another political football in the bitter ''culture wars," just like gay marriage, abortion, and Terry Schiavo's right to live or die.
Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.
