usa today article

[Guest guest]

08/14/2001 - Updated 08:15 PM ET

Leader may impair stem cell panel's credibility

Leader may impair stem cell panel's credibility

Leon Kass' background

Family: Married 1961; two daughters Education: University of Chicago, bachelor of science in biology, 1958, and doctorate in medicine, 1962; Harvard University, Ph.D. in biochemistry, 1967. Medical career: Staff fellow, National Institutes of Health, 1967-70; surgeon, Public Health Service, 1967-69. Academic career: Executive secretary, Committee on the Life Sciences and Social Policy, National Academy of Sciences, 1970-72; research professor in bioethics, town University, 1974-76; professor, University of Chicago, 1976-present.

Less than a week after President Bush announced new rules for allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, top scientists are raising questions about the existence, availability and adequacy of the 60 stem cell lines on which the president has staked the future of federal research.

While such doubts were inevitable, they underline the need for a non-ideological, non-partisan commission to guide decisions about the direction of federal research. And, in fact, Bush provided for just such a body. But the man he selected to head it is preceded by a body of writings that place him on the fringe of medical consensus and raise doubts about his ability to lead the "president's council" toward common ground.

Leon Kass, of the University of Chicago, is by all accounts a brilliant bioethicist. Bush's advisers credit him with helping the president develop his pragmatic stem-cell compromise plan, allowing popular research to move forward without providing federal funding for the controversial destruction of human embryos. And Kass is not the right-wing yes man critics have portrayed him to be. He opposes changing abortion laws, for instance, and says he embraces the values of his "socialist" upbringing.

His written record, however, provides a more radical picture of a man at war with the accepted state of medicine and research. For example:

• Kass' writings question ethical matters long settled among scientists and the public: the use of cadavers for research and teaching, animals as factories for producing tissues and organs, even drugs that rebalance distorted brain chemistry. Kass says he isn't interested in changing the regulation of those practices, but seeks to remind scientists, for instance, of the moral weight of using the body of someone's mother as a teaching tool.

• Kass' writings attack the medical establishment's efforts to extend life spans as ill-considered interventions with destructive social consequences. He also warns of a profound threat from "excessive genetic foreknowledge," concluding that a human's knowledge of his chemical and genetic makeup undermines society and "human distinctiveness." Those beliefs appear to put Kass in opposition to the very goals of stem cell research, which involves understanding the process by which life is created while finding new ways to extend it. But Kass says his intent is to point out that scientists focus on short-term research often giving little thought to the long-term cultural impact of their work.

• Kass' voluminous writings on medical ethics often sound like overwrought dispatches from the culture wars. In a single paragraph, he disparages cloning as part of a destructive social trend including the sexual revolution, feminism, gay rights, single parenthood, divorce and out-of-wedlock births. Today Kass says he was only trying to point out the common issues of how Americans view children and marriage.

Is 60 enough?

Since Bush announced the decision to fund stem cell research, scientists have debated whether 60 cell lines are really available. Some reasons they may not be enough:

Private ownership: Many of the cells are owned by private corporations that may demand high fees or ownership rights in new discoveries. Culture "crash": Cell cultures can die out despite researchers' best efforts. Instability: Stem cells are barely understood, and some cultures' properties change over time, making them unsuitable for research.

There's no way to know whether Kass' amiable personal demeanor and reasonable explanations of his more extreme writings reflect his real views and an ability to compromise, or the effects of White House rehearsing. Regardless, the president's choice is already inviting skepticism from stem-cell scientists, disease activists and fellow ethicists. These are the very communities Kass' commission must lead to common ground if it can hope to contribute meaningful answers to thorny questions already being raised about the strict parameters Bush set for federal stem cell research.

For instance, Bush said he would limit federal research funding to the roughly 60 existing stem cell "lines," colonies of continually dividing cells derived from a single early-stage human embryo. But those lines aren't all readily available for research.

As a result, scientists could bump against the wall of limited access within years, if not sooner. If so, Kass' council would be at the center of the next round of difficult decisions, making key recommendations to the president about whether research should be stifled or should move forward, allowing human embryos to be destroyed in the process.

How the council will do its job is unclear. Almost nothing about the council has been decided yet other than its leadership. Kass has publicly said that a broad diversity of views would be represented on the panel and among those who give testimony.

Regardless of the questions Kass' chairmanship raises and his potential to undermine the credibility of this necessary commission, he's likely here to stay. His position doesn't require Senate approval.

That reality aside, if Bush intends for his council to build understanding and consensus among the public and scientists, Kass should not be given free rein. Bush is responsible for seeing that other views are given equal voice. Otherwise, the controversy over stem cells will only grow, diminishing room for thoughtful compromise.

Our Top Ten! Alaska Amazon Australia British Columbia Colorado Costa Rica France Italy Kenya Maine Montana Nepal Thailand United Kingdom Wyoming Other Trips

Front Page News Money Sports Life Tech Weather Shop

Terms of service Privacy Policy How to advertise About us

© Copyright 2001 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.