A gradual approach is the better course
IT SEEMS every generation enjoys new and wondrous medical advancements revolutionizing the treatment of disease. My parents' generation was the first to benefit from penicillin. Years later, my generation was among the first to receive widespread vaccinations for polio. Today, we seem to take these ''innovations" for granted as we look toward the next new frontier of medicine -- stem cells.
A number of today's leading scholars say stem cells offer medical promise and hope to people around the world.
Since first discovering stem cells in1998, scientists have labored to unlock their mysteries. The goal is to develop cell-based therapies and medicines for diseases such as ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) as well as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and others.
However, controversy over the harvesting of stem cells -- especially those derived from human embryos in the early stages of development -- has sparked nationwide debate about medical ethics and morality.
Now, the debate over stem cell research has made its way to the Massachusetts Legislature, where members of the House and Senate are considering the extent to which stem cell research should be permitted in the Commonwealth.
As House minority leader and an 11-year veteran of the Legislature, I am happy to say the debate over the past few days has been among the most professional and profound exchanges I have ever witnessed in the House Chamber.
Throughout the process we listened to very compelling arguments on both sides of the issue. We heard personal accounts of disease that some day could be remedied by stem cell treatment on the one hand, and deeply held moral and religious objections to stem cell research on the other, with a myriad of opinions everywhere in between. The citizens of Massachusetts should be proud of their legislators' efforts to understand and debate the stem cell issue, in a bipartisan manner, before ultimately casting their votes.
During the debate I was joined by many members who approached the issue with hesitation due to unanswered questions about the stem cell bill. These members hailed from both sides of the political spectrum, so I think it would be unfair to cast our position as one of moral conservatism. Instead, our views are better expressed as moral concern.
I saw the question before the House as one of degree. No member articulated objection to at least some amount of stem cell research in this state. However, representatives differed significantly on where to draw the line. In particular, a number of legislators, including myself, support adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, but oppose a process known as somatic cell nuclear transfer or cloning.
Specifically, I believe we should allow research to be conducted on adult human stem cells from any source, as well as umbilical cord blood and placental tissue donated for research purposes. I also support embryonic stem cell research if performed on so-called ''surplus" embryos intended but not used for in vitro fertilization procedures.
However, I do not support research conducted on embryos created (cloned) specifically for scientific purposes. This position is consistent with one recently adopted by an overwhelming majority of the United Nations and, I believe, is a morally and ethically appropriate line.
The House and Senate both proposed bills that would expressly permit therapeutic cloning. To prevent this practice, while still supporting embryonic and other stem cell research, I sponsored an amendment in the House to replace the text offered by the Democratic leadership.
The substitute amendment also would have increased the penalties for violations of the stem cell law, including human cloning, and would have enhanced the authority and accountability of those charged with monitoring research in our state.
The substitute amendment would have adopted a more gradual approach to stem cell research in Massachusetts.
The best policy would be for our state to proceed with stem cell research a step at a time, acknowledging successes and correcting failures over time, rather than exposing ourselves to research with untested success, unproven benefit, and questionable ethical basis.
Unfortunately, the House did not see fit to approve these changes as part of its final action. I remain hopeful some of these provisions will be reflected in the final product of conference committee members incoming weeks.
I count myself among those who sincerely believe in and support the promise of stem cell research. However, my conscience forces me to draw the line at the point of in-vitro fertilization and to oppose efforts to clone human embryos in laboratories. Cloning would, among other things, necessitate the procurement of thousands upon thousands of eggs harvested through painful procedures and the utilization of a variety of drugs, some unapproved by the FDA and whose long-term health consequences are unknown to their female subjects.
With so many unanswered questions about the process and the ethics of cloning, we cannot sanction its existence in Massachusetts. Instead, we should maximize the use of all adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells gained from excess or discarded IVF embryos.
Bradley H. Jones Jr. , Republican of North Reading, is the minority leader of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
