Chris Mooney is a freelance writer living in Washington, D.C., and a senior correspondent for American Prospect magazine. A frequent writer for SAGE Crossroads, each month Chris develops an online column for Skeptical Inquirer magazine, where he serves as a contributing editor. Chris has contributed to a variety of publications in recent years including Wired, Slate, Salon, Mother Jones, Legal Affairs, Reason, The American Scholar, the Washington Monthly, The Utne Reader, Columbia Journalism Review, Washington Post, Washington City Paper and Boston Globe. He focuses on issues at the intersection of science and politics and has been praised as a "revolutionary mind" by Seed Magazine. Chris is currently writing a book about the modern conservative movement and science.
Click here to learn more about Chris Mooney.
The transcript follows.
_______________________
Moderator: Welcome, everyone. Our topic today is politics and aging research. Chris Mooney, science policy journalist and contributing editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, will answer our questions. Let’s begin!
Chris Mooney: Yes, let's. Let me say that I'm glad to be here and looking forward to a lively hour of discussion. Incidentally, if you're wondering what I've previously written about embryonic stem cell research, or what qualifies me to spout off on this subject, let me point you (PDF), to a major feature story I did with the American Prospect magazine back in September. This piece focused its energies on the California stem cell initiative, which is really where it's at today in terms of stem cell research, at least in the U.S. As bioethicists David Magnus and Arthur Caplan wrote recently in the San Jose Mercury News, "While it is hard to tell from the media coverage in the wake of the presidential election, the citizens of California brought the stem-cell debate to a screeching halt. There will now be ample public funding for that research."
That's where things stand at the moment, and the question becomes not whether, but how this research will be conducted. And with that, let me take some of your questions.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Do you think that allegations of corruption and conflict of interest in the design of the new California stem cell institute will turn public opinion against it, and put it in a weakened position to defend against the effort to repeal Proposition 71 in 2005 or 2006?
Chris Mooney: Well, wait a second here. I think the original allegations, by some Proposition 71 opponents, were that the design of the initiative left it open to capture by special interests due to a lack of democratic accountability. That's what the respected science studies scholar Daniel Sarewitz, for one, has argued. But I don't think there could possibly be an outright charge of "corruption" or "conflict of interest" at this point in time, while this thing is still getting off the ground. No funds have been released yet for research.
Nevertheless, there's no doubt that Proposition 71 will have to prove itself, and show that it's not just a boondoggle for the biotech industry. If the initiative does indeed suffer from the fundamental flaws that critics claimed, then that certainly will lessen public support. But luckily for Proposition 71's proponents, they're aware of these criticisms and, with a clean slate, have the opportunity to put in place a system that will avoid such pitfalls.
As best I can tell, that's what's currently going on in California. Things have gotten off to a good start, with the National Academy of Sciences being called in host a workshop on "best practices" in the oversight of biomedical research, including grantmaking, institutional review boards, and so forth. There's a huge repository of wisdom about how to fund and conduct research stored in California's universities and private scientific institutes, and this was an attempt to tap into that. As one participant in the event told me recently, "There was a sense I think in the room that the whole world is watching."
In fact, I think that because of the criticisms early on, those who will be running this program are taking extra precautions. For example, I note that Robert Klein, who brought this whole initiative into being in the first place and will head the Proposition 71 Independent Citizens Oversight Committee, has pledged "not hold any biomedical stock or investment interest during the term of office." So perhaps ironically, those who opposed this initiative have, through their criticisms, made the people who will be implementing and guiding Proposition 71 super cautious. And I think that's a good sign.
_______________________
Harrisburg, Pa.: It seems as if state governments such as California are becoming more of a source of funding for stem cell research. Is it the proper role of state governments to invest in such research?
Chris Mooney: The states are certainly playing their role as "laboratories of democracy" on this question--what a fitting phrase that turns out to be. I recommend that you read William Safire's column today about this. It's not just California: Other states are hopping on the stem cell wagon, hoping to prevent their best researchers from packing up their bags and heading west. Is this the "proper" role for states? Well, I think most people would consider the National Institutes of Health to be a stellar research institution and the first choice for funding this research. But because of the current federal policy, that hasn't happened at a level that scientists, disease advocates, and others consider necessary. So states are filling the gap, and apparently they can afford it.
So this strikes me as little more than a new development in our long tradition of federalism. I do see some possible grounds for concern, in that these states don't have the long tradition of sponsoring major research that the federal government has through the National Institutes of Health and other agencies. They're starting from scratch. That's definitely a challenge, and we have to hope that they will proceed with care and draw lessons from the NIH, universities, and so forth.
There's also an irony here that I can't resist remarking upon. Federalism used to work against the scientific community; local control of education, for example, facilitated creationist attempts to control biology curricula. But now, it turns out that states are helping scientists get around a policy at the national level that they don't like.
_______________________
Boston, Mass.: It seems that adult stem cells have been more fruitful in healing diseases. Why shouldn't billions of dollars be spent of research that works rather than use it for research in embyroic work that still remains immoral and fruitless.
Chris Mooney: Alas, the fact that I'm getting this question--and the fact that John Kerry himself got a similar question in the second presidential debate--attests to the vast amount of questionable scientific information that's floating around out there on this issue. The truth is that all the leading research scientists in this field will tell you the same thing: 1) both "adult" and embryonic stem cells have research promise; 2) at this point it's impossible to say which is "better," and in fact, future cures may well draw upon both types of cells; 3) given this, it would be foolish to cut off either line of research.
Don't just take my word for this. Here's a June 2004 letter (PDF) from the star studded International Society for Stem Cell Research to President Bush. "Research on all types of stem cells warrants increased federal funding," it reads. "These include stem cells found in fetal and adult tissues and pluripotent stem cells isolated from blastocysts or derived by nuclear transfer."
Furthermore, scientists have been studying human adult stem cells--and particularly hematopoietic stem cells--far longer than they've been studying embryonic ones. So it's no surprise that in some respects, research in this area may be further along. However, we need to be very cautious about claims for adult or embryonic stem cell therapies that haven't been proven safe and effective in clinical trials. Unfortunately there's a lot of this kind of stuff out there.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: What do you think the legislative outlook is for stem cell research in the 109th Congress?
Chris Mooney: In my view, thanks to what has happened in California, the debate in Washington hardly even matters any more. Unless, of course, Senator Sam Brownback's bill to ban all forms of cloning--including "therapeutic cloning" or cloned embryo research--somehow passes the Senate. Then we would have a federalism showdown pitting the feds versus the Golden State, which has green-lighted this work. And at that point there are all sorts of interesting legal possibilities in terms of who would win...but barring that, I think Washington has been largely superseded in this debate.
_______________________
St. Paul, Minn.: How does this issue tie into what the Union of Concerned Scientists has shown to be the Bush administration's unprecedented manipulation, suppression, and distortion of federal government science?
Chris Mooney: You know, it's funny you ask that, because the Union of Concerned Scientists did not single out the issue of embryonic stem cell research in their now famous report (PDF). However, in a prior report on the same subject that got less press attention, Rep. Henry Waxman did accuse the Bush administration of abusing science on the issue of embryonic stem cell research (PDF).
Waxman's claim centers on Bush's assertion, on August 9, 2001, that "more than 60" embryonic stem cell lines existed for research at the time of his statement. And how can I express this tactfully...the most charitable thing you can say is that the president clearly made a mistake in saying this. There's no proof that he did so intentionally and I'm certainly not calling him a liar. But at the very least, we can say that Bush relied upon bad or misunderstood information in making this claim--a centerpoint of his policy.
In my own view, the president shouldn't make a mistake like that. I mean, we're talking about someone who can bring in any adviser he wants to tell him about the real state of the science, how many lines actually exist, and within that number, how many of them scientists will probably want to use. Yet considering that only 22 lines are currently available to scientists more than three years after Bush's statement--and that leading researchers like John Hopkins' John Gearhart will tell you only a fraction of those are useful--the appropriate scientific consultation obviously didn't take place. I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion.
It's important also to bear in mind that the number that Bush gave was critical to the credibility of the policy itself. This was supposed to be a "compromise" that allowed federally funded research to go forward, with limitations. The "more than 60" lines would supposedly sustain adequate research within Bush's self-defined ethical framework. So unfortunately, I think that this key misstatement undermines the policy.
But you shouldn't just take my word for it. On this subject I always like to quote from Stephen H. Hall's book Merchants of Immortality, which is the most definitive journalistic treatment I know of the whole stem cell debate in 2001 and 2002. As Hall puts it, "It is clear, in retrospect, that the White House sent Bush out on national television without having vetted (or even understood) the biological status of the cell lines he had embraced as the foundation of his compromise policy." Later Hall went even farther, likening Bush's "more than 60" lines claim to assertions about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Strong words.
So to answer your question (finally), I think the stem cell issue definitely fits in to the framework of what the Union of Concerned Scientists are talking about.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: How do you interpret President Bush's speech in 2001, in which he stated there were "more than 60" and then the government later said 64, stem cell lines at the time?
Chris Mooney: I just said a lot about this, but let me say a little more. It's important to understand exactly what was wrong with Bush's "more than 60" lines claim.
When I was working on my American Prospect magazine article (PDF), on this subject, I had the fortune of speaking with James Battey, who heads the NIH Stem Cell Task Force, about this very question. What Battey told me squares with what other embryonic stem cell research experts have also explained.
Here goes: There's a crucial distinction between stem cell "derivations" and stem cell "lines." A "derivation" is when you extract the inner cell mass of a blastocyst (an early embryo) and put it in a dish. But that's different from a line, where the (derived) cells have grown in culture in a sustained way, so that they can be studied and--this is crucial--shipped to other scientists. For a variety of reasons, not every derivation will develop into a full-blown line. Ergo, not every derivation will be scientifically useful.
That brings us back to Bush's August 9, 2001 statement about the existence of "more than 60" lines. At that point in time, there may well have been more than 60 derivations. But alas, that's very different than more than 60 lines. This appears to be the chief source of confusion.
_______________________
Chicago, Ill.: Given the recent UN activity regarding a potential ban on reproductive cloning, do you see a general holding pattern for stem cell research or do you anticipate a significant move one way or the other in the next year?
Chris Mooney: The attempt to use the United Nations as a backdoor means of banning "therapeutic" cloning, or cloning for research, has failed for two years in a row now. Each time, defenders of the research have rallied and prevented such a misguided action by the UN. I think the people who have been fighting this fight are extremely relieved, and they don't expect to have to go another round any time soon.
Rather than a global treaty calling for a ban on all forms of cloning, the UN will instead be adopting a "declaration" on this subject. It will be the product of negotiation and, therefore, will likely contain language that pleases everybody. So, in short, this is a huge victory for supporters of research.
I don't expect more significant action at the U.N. anytime soon, then. In Congress the big possibility, as I've said before, is that Senator Sam Brownback's bill to ban all forms of cloning--including for research--starts to move.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: What do you think it would take for President Bush to expand the current federal policy on embryonic stem cell research?
Chris Mooney: Honestly, I wonder why he would bother. Plenty of research will now happen under California's Proposition 71, enough to really serve as a testing ground for this field. That really takes the pressure off of Bush to change his policy. So why would he do anything under these circumstances?
After all, changing the policy could be interpreted in the press as a tacit admission that the policy was flawed--in short, that John Kerry was right during the campaign. So, as a PR move it could backfire. I'm guessing the White House will leave this alone, but it's only a guess.
_______________________
Gainesville, Fla.: I understand from some experts that some scientists in adult stem cell research have claimed to find what they think may be adult stem cells for spinal cord or other specific types of tissue, but that these claims are not yet adequately verified. Do you know the status?
Chris Mooney: I don't think there's any doubt that there are various kinds of tissue-specific "adult" stem cells. The scientific debate at this moment is really over what these cells are capable of doing--i.e., can they transform into different tissue types, or are they limited to forming cells within their own tissue type? This debate isn't over yet.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: How important is federal funding to stem cell research? Can't a lot of the research be done through private funding?
Chris Mooney: Here I think you have to begin by reflecting on this nation's long tradition, especially since World War II, of investing in scientific research that can have a domestic (and not just military) benefit. Most obviously, federal funding allows research to go forward, and allows us, as citizens, to enjoy the benefits of that work. But in controversial areas like embryonic stem cell research, federal funding also ensures--crucially--public accountability in the way that taxpayer funds get dispersed. The federal government can set ethical standards, and refuse, for example, to fund research where excess embryos are being wasted or where there's no clear scientific benefit.
So while some of this research can perhaps be done with private funding, I think we have to ask, 'Do we really want the private sector running this field?' I would suggest that we do not. I believe that precisely because this is such a controversial area, we need public oversight of the work and high ethical standards. Incidentally, a great model for this is provided by Great Britain, where the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority provides tough oversight of research proposals while also allowing meritorious and ethical research to proceed.
Alas, it now seems that in the U.S., states rather than the federal government are going to be setting and enforcing ethical standards. This could result in a crazy quilt, and we simply have to hope for the best. Earlier I quoted David Magnus and Arthur Caplan. I'd like to do so again on this point: "California has a unique opportunity to set the standards for how stem-cell research will be conducted," they note. I think the people in charge of this in California know that, and know that they'd better not blow it.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.: Has stem cell research been politicized differently or more than other types of research? I.e. is there a model for how this may play out?
Chris Mooney: The model, I think, has got to be fetal tissue research. This was a big issue during the late Reagan years and throughout the first Bush administration. Neither would allow federal funding of this work, if I recall correctly. Then Clinton allowed it, and today there's simply no ethical debate any more. We have accepted the use of fetal tissues in research. I suspect that soon we will accept the use of discarded IVF embryos, donated for research, in precisely the same way.
_______________________
Moderator: We’ve reached the end of our hour. Chris, thank you for joining us and answering our questions.
Chris Mooney: Definitely. It was good to be here and thanks for the great questions.
_______________________
Chris Mooney: I also want to remind everyone interested in this topic to check out SAGE Crossroads, the sponsor of this chat, where there's ongoing coverage of the stem cell and other aging related issues. Signing off...
_______________________
