A gradual approach is the better course
By Bradley H. Jones Jr. | April 2, 2005
BOSTON GLOBE

IT SEEMS every generation enjoys new and wondrous medical
advancements revolutionizing the treatment of disease. My parents'
generation was the first to benefit from penicillin. Years later, my
generation was among the first to receive widespread vaccinations
for polio. Today, we seem to take these ''innovations" for granted
as we look toward the next new frontier of medicine -- stem cells.

A number of today's leading scholars say stem cells offer medical
promise and hope to people around the world.

Since first discovering stem cells in1998, scientists have labored
to unlock their mysteries. The goal is to develop cell-based
therapies and medicines for diseases such as ALS (Lou Gehrig's
disease) as well as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and others.

However, controversy over the harvesting of stem cells -- especially
those derived from human embryos in the early stages of development -
- has sparked nationwide debate about medical ethics and morality.

Now, the debate over stem cell research has made its way to the
Massachusetts Legislature, where members of the House and Senate are
considering the extent to which stem cell research should be
permitted in the Commonwealth.

As House minority leader and an 11-year veteran of the Legislature,
I am happy to say the debate over the past few days has been among
the most professional and profound exchanges I have ever witnessed
in the House Chamber.

Throughout the process we listened to very compelling arguments on
both sides of the issue. We heard personal accounts of disease that
some day could be remedied by stem cell treatment on the one hand,
and deeply held moral and religious objections to stem cell research
on the other, with a myriad of opinions everywhere in between. The
citizens of Massachusetts should be proud of their legislators'
efforts to understand and debate the stem cell issue, in a
bipartisan manner, before ultimately casting their votes.

During the debate I was joined by many members who approached the
issue with hesitation due to unanswered questions about the stem
cell bill. These members hailed from both sides of the political
spectrum, so I think it would be unfair to cast our position as one
of moral conservatism. Instead, our views are better expressed as
moral concern.

I saw the question before the House as one of degree. No member
articulated objection to at least some amount of stem cell research
in this state. However, representatives differed significantly on
where to draw the line. In particular, a number of legislators,
including myself, support adult stem cell research and embryonic
stem cell research, but oppose a process known as somatic cell
nuclear transfer or cloning.

Specifically, I believe we should allow research to be conducted on
adult human stem cells from any source, as well as umbilical cord
blood and placental tissue donated for research purposes. I also
support embryonic stem cell research if performed on so-
called ''surplus" embryos intended but not used for in vitro
fertilization procedures.

However, I do not support research conducted on embryos created
(cloned) specifically for scientific purposes. This position is
consistent with one recently adopted by an overwhelming majority of
the United Nations and, I believe, is a morally and ethically
appropriate line.

ADVERTISEMENT

The House and Senate both proposed bills that would expressly permit
therapeutic cloning. To prevent this practice, while still
supporting embryonic and other stem cell research, I sponsored an
amendment in the House to replace the text offered by the Democratic
leadership.

The substitute amendment also would have increased the penalties for
violations of the stem cell law, including human cloning, and would
have enhanced the authority and accountability of those charged with
monitoring research in our state.

The substitute amendment would have adopted a more gradual approach
to stem cell research in Massachusetts.

The best policy would be for our state to proceed with stem cell
research a step at a time, acknowledging successes and correcting
failures over time, rather than exposing ourselves to research with
untested success, unproven benefit, and questionable ethical basis.

Unfortunately, the House did not see fit to approve these changes as
part of its final action. I remain hopeful some of these provisions
will be reflected in the final product of conference committee
members incoming weeks.

I count myself among those who sincerely believe in and support the
promise of stem cell research. However, my conscience forces me to
draw the line at the point of in-vitro fertilization and to oppose
efforts to clone human embryos in laboratories. Cloning would, among
other things, necessitate the procurement of thousands upon
thousands of eggs harvested through painful procedures and the
utilization of a variety of drugs, some unapproved by the FDA and
whose long-term health consequences are unknown to their female
subjects.

With so many unanswered questions about the process and the ethics
of cloning, we cannot sanction its existence in Massachusetts.
Instead, we should maximize the use of all adult stem cells and
embryonic stem cells gained from excess or discarded IVF embryos.

Bradley H. Jones Jr. , Republican of North Reading, is the minority
leader of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.