August 9, 2004 marked the third anniversary of President Bush's decision to limit federal funding of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research to cell lines created before August 2001. On this anniversary, First Lady Laura Bush defended her husband's policy and suggested that his opponents, including Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and members of former President Reagan's family, have overstated the benefits of such research. Laura Bush used as evidence the fact that "embryonic stem cell research is very preliminary right now and that the implication that cures for Alzheimer's are right around the corner is just not right and it's really not fair to people who are watching a loved one suffer with this disease."
Mrs. Bush and others making this argument have lost sight of three very important truths.
First, while it is true that Alzheimer's disease is highly unlikely to be among the first human conditions helped by ESC technologies, there are many other diseases that potentially could be, such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and multiple sclerosis. Similarly, while Alzheimer's may never be cured by ESC technologies, scientists may gain a better understanding of the development of the disease, which may indirectly lead to treatments or cures. The lack of direct or immediate applications of ESC research to Alzheimer's treatment is not a fair reason to denigrate the entire field of ESC research.
Second, with so little funding, can we really expect there to have been much progress in the study of cells as complex as ESCs, which have the ability to develop into any and every cell type present in the human body? Can we really expect to have unraveled the mystery of these cells when only twenty-one lines are available for public research? And what of the fact that most of these few lines are unusable in human trials due to contamination by the animal serums in which they are maintained? In addition, let us not forget the lack of genetic diversity in these available cells and the fact that as they divide, each successive cellular generation accumulates mutations rendering them worse for study.
Third, never have scientific discoveries been made and perfected without experimentation and failure. The Wright brothers' first flight lasted twelve seconds and covered 120 feet. Imagine if that preliminary flight failed and led Wilber and Orville to give up on their pursuits. Better yet, imagine if Paul Erlich had given up his quest to cure syphilis — a scourge as terrible in the nineteenth century as HIV is today — at his 605th attempt. He would never have discovered the chemical that cured syphilis without killing the host, the aptly named "compound 606" which laid the groundwork for the discovery of antibiotics and other chemotherapeutic agents upon which we rely.
Science, like anything else, requires tolerance of a learning curve, and of trial and error. Had immediate success ever been a prerequisite for the pursuit of new technologies — and initial failure indicative of lack of potential — we would still be living in caves. We should accept that any cures or treatments that might result from studying ESCs might lie far in the future.
No one is shocked that little progress has been made thus far in the field of ESC research. There are obvious reasons for that. While cures and treatments are not right around the corner, understanding is, and that is where science begins.
Aubrey Stimola is a research intern at the American Council on Science and Health.
