In debates over military spending and policies, concerns are often expressed that as a nation we are too often fighting the last war, not the next war. That leads us, for example, to order jet fighters and personnel carriers that have no application in urban guerrilla warfare.
Now comes evidence that a similar phenomenon also is present at the intersection of scientific innovation, law and politics. A federal judge has ruled that federal funding of stem cell research is illegal, citing the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. That’s a bit of legalese that’s been attached to every federal Health and Human Services budget since 1996. In essence, it prohibits federal funds from supporting research in which embryos are destroyed or discarded. Politically, it’s a nod to the divisive abortion issue that’s been so much of Washington rhetoric for a generation. But its application to stem cell research is an odd mutation that authors of the legislation never envisioned. The science of stem cells derived from embryos is a product of the 21st century, well after the amendment was drafted. And therein lies the rub.
As reporter Greg Bordonaro details on our cover today, stem cell research is an important part of Connecticut’s bioscience future. It’s at the heart of a $100 million bond issue approved by voters in 2005. And it’s a big part of what could drive development of a biotech zone in Greater Hartford.
The economic impacts of such a biotech zone are impressive and needed. But so are the fruits of that science. Exciting medical breakthroughs are all around us. One American company sees a potential treatment for Alzheimer’s disease; another sees hope for treating Lou Gehrig’s disease; yet others are working on treatments for spinal cords injuries, diabetes, heart problems. At UConn, as we reported a few weeks ago, scientists are working on a potential replacement for joint cartilage. The list is long.
It’s all quite exciting and America has been at the forefront of the effort. Then came the Bush years, when a freeze on funding and limitations on existing stem cell lines sent leading scientists abroad. State initiatives — like Connecticut’s and a similar one in California — offered hope and slowed the exodus amid hope a new regime in Washington would restore funding. And that’s just the way the wind was blowing until last week’s ruling.
An appeal has been filed; work will go on for the moment. But there clearly is a disruption and a cloud cast over the future of the industry. The question that needs an answer is whether the overwhelming support for the promise of stem cell innovation can be delayed by people fighting the same tired yet still divisive abortion battle.
In almost 150 years, the country is barely past the Civil War. Scars from the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement are still visible. There’s good reason to let history play a role in shaping decisions, lest we repeat our mistakes. But there is a time to look forward not back and stem cell research offers just such a national moment.
The world is moving on. A British firm announced a breakthrough that shows promise of growing a liver tissue from stem cells. This is technology the world wants and will get, with or without us. It just makes good sense — business sense, science sense, moral and ethical sense, national-interest sense — to use our vast innovative resources to be part of the solution, rather than become mired in old wars.
Connecticut has a proud spot at the forefront of efforts to advance innovation and technology. This is a fight that is ours, not just because of the potential economic impact, but also because of the potential impact on mankind.
Let’s hope reason triumphs over emotion here and this impediment to scientific innovation is quickly removed from the road. We all need the many benefits that will flow from stem cell research.
