HOPE OFFERED THROUGH PRINCIPLED AND ETHICAL STEM CELL RESEARCH ACT--Continued -- (Senate - April 11, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, throughout the history of our Nation, generations of American scientists have looked for ways to improve the human condition and address the problem of disease and the afflictions of old age. Working in labs either spartan or spacious, they have toiled together over the years to find cures for the health conditions that continue to plague mankind.
As they conducted their research, each scientist's work built on the discoveries that preceded it, and the results they achieved over the years have enabled us to live longer, healthier, more productive lives. The list of medical miracles and marvels that have come from their work has made the phrase ``American ingenuity'' known around the world for the creativity it represents and the results it has so often provided.
From time to time, however, there is a breakthrough--or possible breakthrough--in medical science that has the potential to revolutionize not only our ability to diagnose or treat an affliction but our basic understanding of how the human body operates. When that occurs, a debate ensues as society attempts to evaluate the new procedure's potential to address the diseases that threaten our health as well as the ethics of putting the new procedures into practice.
Such a possible breakthrough is stem cell research. At present, its promise and potential for changing the way we view health and disease seems limitless. In theory, stem cells may be capable of doing everything we can possibly imagine--and more. Unfortunately, there is often a wide gap between what is possible in theory and what is practical and possible in the real world. What the future of stem cells will be no one knows for certain. Still, the possibilities are more than intriguing and certainly worth an in-depth look.
The research that has been conducted into stem cells so far has been so exciting because of the very nature of these cells. Stem cells have the capacity to renew themselves and then become specialized cells. Most of the cells that are in the body are created and committed to performing a specific function. A stem cell remains ``on the fence,'' however, uncommitted until it is given a signal by the body to develop into a specialized cell.
That ability to change and become a cell that can be used almost anywhere in the body has fascinated scientists who are studying the ability of the body to repair itself through the use of using these ``uncommitted'' cells.
We have all heard the saying--you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. In this case, however, you really do need a strong background in science to understand fully the specifics of stem cell research and its implications for the future. Fortunately, we are not here to predict the impact stem cells will have on our health care system in the years to come. We are here to make a determination as to the wisdom of using taxpayer dollars to finance additional work in this area--and then pick the best vehicle to support it. There is a big difference.
In debating and voting on the two bills before us today, we are not making a judgment about the science itself, as others have stated. Rather, we are making a judgment about whether that science should be supported by taxpayer dollars. We are deciding the appropriate moral construct for the work of those key scientists in manipulating and possibly even destroying the basic building blocks of human life. We are reaffirming how we as a society view the embryo and its function.
Every year, within our appropriations bills, we make a judgment about how we want to treat embryos--the very beginning of human life. The
Dickey-Wicker amendment is clear. Federal dollars cannot be used for creating human embryos for research purposes or for research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to the risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero. Therefore, every year, as part of the appropriations process, we reaffirm that science must be guided by moral values, and our values as a society compel us to place certain limits on the pursuit of science. Today's debate will consider whether our values as a society compel us to maintain certain limits on taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Without question, science must be guided by morality. There have been too many instances over the course of human history in which terrible things have been done in the name of science. Scientific exploration is important and we should do everything we can to further our knowledge of ourselves and our world, but not at the expense of disregarding the moral viewpoints of millions of Americans who don't believe their taxes should pay for something they find abhorrent.
In determining how to proceed, we of course must consider the promise of stem cell research. But in considering that promise, we must make it clear that while stem cells may someday lead to therapeutic advancements for devastating diseases like Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's, leukemia, and spinal cord injuries, that day has not come yet. That is why we must be careful not to oversell the promise of this research to the American people because this field of research has not yet resulted in human clinical trials. Every reputable scientist will admit that any possible cure or advanced treatment using embryonic stem cells are many years away. There are currently no cures waiting to be plucked off laboratory shelves after our votes on these bills.
So, while the research provides great hope for millions of Americans, at this point, the full benefits have not yet been realized. They fire our imagination as we consider the possibilities that may or may not come to pass. Whether embryonic stem cells will fulfill their promise someday is still very much in question, and much work is already ongoing to see whether we can get an answer.
In this context, I want to further discuss S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. A similar bill was passed the House on January 11, 2007, by a vote of 253 to 174. S. 5 would allow additional research on embryos from in vitro fertilization procedures, under some limited circumstances.
However, even in these rather limited circumstances, I must oppose S. 5, because the limits it imposes on taxpayer-funded science do not respect the moral value of a human embryo. It does not fully recognize our decision within Dickey-Wicker and other contexts to treat the human embryo as more than simply material for scientific research.
The supporters of this bill will acknowledge that it does not limit research to human embryos that are currently frozen but extends the window for that research well into the future. By doing so, the bill creates an incentive for the creation of embryos solely for research purposes. This is contrary to what Congress reaffirms within the Dickey-Wicker language each year.
And, although the bill prohibits financial and other inducements for the parents of the embryo, it does not eliminate financial or other inducements for the clinics and doctors that create the embryos. Thus, it does not eliminate the financial incentives for in vitro fertilization clinics to create more embryos than are absolutely necessary to help parents conceive a child. This loophole will further erode the congressional prohibition through Dickey-Wicker against the creation of human embryos solely for research purposes.
I am not opposed to embryonic stem cell research, but I am opposed to the provisions of S. 5. I would welcome the opportunity to debate amendments to the bill, but the agreement that governs our debate does not permit amendments. And, without an opportunity to amend S. 5, I have no choice but to vote against it.
However, I will support alternatives, such as the Isakson-Coleman bill, so that we can allow greater Federal support for embryonic stem cell research. I believe we can and should unite behind a bill that respects the diversity of our views on human embryos, but still pushes the science forward. The Isakson-Coleman legislation is such a bill.
A vote for or against S. 5 is not a vote for or against scientific advances. After all, if we truly trust science, we ought to give science a chance to solve this dilemma over embryonic stem cell research. As outlined by the report from the President's Council on Bioethics, researchers are exploring at least five different ways by which we can create stem cell lines without harming or destroying embryos. If these researchers are successful, then the arguments against Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research will fall away.
Further, States and private research organizations are already plowing billions of dollars into human embryonic stem cell research that goes beyond the parameters of President Bush's policy. Let those efforts continue, while we continue working in Congress to support stem cell research that doesn't involve harming or destroying an embryo, which is something that the vast majority of Americans could support.