(2 of 3)
The floodgates would open. Right now most scientists steer clear of stem-cell research because they have to: if any part of their lab receives federal money (and most do), they can't touch this research. If that changes, hundreds of labs across the country, including medical powerhouses like those at Harvard and M.I.T., would probably begin work on stem cells. Scientists would be able to share findings freely and review one another's conclusions. The government could choose to regulate how embryos are cultivated, handled and ultimately destroyed. Treatments would probably come sooner. Of course, there are no guarantees: it's been 18 years since the government said an AIDS vaccine would soon be in hand.
NO
Research would proceed but only in the handful of labs willing to fund it on their own. These labs are subject to minimal oversight. They rarely consult with one another, research doesn't get peer-reviewed, and studies may be unknowingly (and unnecessarily) duplicated. Many of the nation's top scientists who would otherwise lead the research effort would remain on the sidelines. And commercial pressures could make private labs focus more on research that might turn a profit than on studies that advance general knowledge. Says James Thomson, the stem-cell pioneer: "Industry and other countries will go forward. The field will progress without federal funding, but very, very slowly."
WHY NOT JUST USE EXISTING STEM LINES?
Last week, before both sides in this debate had fully dug in their heels, there was talk of a compromise. Since some colonies of stem cells already exist, why not permit funding of research on these cells only? (After all, the embryos had already been destroyed.) Bush adviser Karl Rove, below left, was searching for a way to satisfy Catholics without putting a lid on research. But religious conservatives quickly countered that such a compromise would still mean profiting from the killing of human embryos--and thus propagating a "culture of death." And scientists weren't satisfied either. They say the dozen or so existing cell lines (essentially self-replenishing colonies of stem cells) offer too little genetic diversity. Each cell line is subtly different, and researchers have yet to determine which ones will be best. The most robust cell lines may not yet exist. Only when there are a few hundred cell lines, say scientists, will we truly know what stem cells are capable of doing.
WHY NOT JUST USE ADULT STEM CELLS?
Republican Senator Sam Brownback, below left, believes a "wonderful" compromise for Bush would be to increase greatly funding for research on adult stem cells, which are harvested from bone marrow and brain tissue and have begun to show some of the same potential as those derived from embryos. But scientists aren't so sure. It's not yet clear whether adult stem cells will prove as versatile as embryonic ones, particularly in developing cures for Parkinson's disease and diabetes. Researchers also note that it is more difficult to produce large quantities of adult stem cells, and fear they may lose their potency over time.
IF NOT FOR RESEARCH, THEN FOR WHAT?