  |
|
|
 |
St. Louis Post Dispatch.
February 12, 2006
Talent's Stem Cell Switch is Under Fire
Jo Mannies and Deirdre Shesgreen
The night before he announced to the nation that he was shifting his
stance on stem cell research, U.S. Sen. Jim Talent conferred with his wife.
As he tells it, Brenda Talent, who is known for her frankness, had a
prediction: "Jim, two things are going to happen: Nobody's going to
like it, and they're all going to say you're doing it just for political
reasons."
Replied the senator, "Well, if nobody likes it, why in the world would
I be doing it for political reasons?"
But that's the flak Talent is fielding from all sides, in the wake of
his announcement Friday that he was dropping his support for an
anti-cloning bill popular with abortion opponents, and sponsoring an
alternative proposal that he billed as a compromise.
As his wife predicted, nobody seems to like it. And everybody suspects
politics is behind it.
That's not a friendly backdrop as Talent, R-Mo., seeks to win
re-election in what's already shaping up as a neck-and-neck contest with his likely
Democratic rival, state Auditor Claire McCaskill. The two also are expected to
share the November ballot with a contentious proposal to protect some forms of
embryonic stem cell research.
"We're very disappointed," said Pam Fichter, president of Missouri
Right to Life, the state's largest anti-abortion group and one known for helping
to swing close state elections.
Fichter said members of the group began calling Talent's office a week
ago after hearing rumors of his plans to no longer co-sponsor an
anti-cloning bill proposed by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. That bill would ban various
forms of embryonic stem cell research, including some currently performed in
Missouri.
"We were urging him not to do it," Fichter said, adding that it's too
early to say how Talent's decision will affect her group's traditional support.
Larry Weber, executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference,
asserted that Talent's decision meant that he "lost his upper hand on this
issue" against McCaskill, who supports abortion rights.
She also has endorsed the pro-embryonic stem cell proposal that the
Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures - a coalition of business groups,
research institutions and universities - is seeking to get on the November
ballot.
McCaskill noted Friday that Talent has yet to take a stand on that
proposal. She coupled that with his decision to drop support for the Brownback
bill, to paint a portrait of a waffler in the stem cell debate.
"It signals that Jim Talent is not going to stand firm, is not going to
come down clearly on issues that are important - and that's very
problematic," she said.
Talent has been feeling pressure for months. The stem cell ballot
proposal has split the Missouri Republican Party. Some of the party's largest
donors are bankrolling the effort to pass the stem cell proposal, while many of
the GOP's staunchest grass-roots groups are committed to defeating it.
Gov. Matt Blunt has endorsed the measure, but so far he's the only
major Republican officeholder to do so.
Donn Rubin, chairman of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures,
was one of the few Friday to offer conciliatory words about Talent's decision.
While emphasizing that the group was taking no position on his alternative
proposal, Rubin said he was happy to see Talent drop his support of the
Brownback bill.
"It would make criminals out of patients and do terrible things for the
future of medical research," Rubin said. "So in that context, not supporting
the Brownback bill is a good thing for probably most stem cell advocates."
Alternative research
Talent plans to promote an alternative form of research called altered
nuclear transfer, or ANT.
Under ANT, a cell is genetically altered so that it can't develop into
an embryo. Although the process is still under study, Talent notes that
it's touted by proponents as a way to avoid the moral debate over embryonic
stem cell research, which sometimes involves a fertilized human embryo.
He suggests that the federal government offer $10 million to five
scientific institutions to develop the technology, and award a $20 million prize
to the first research outlet that successfully harvests stem cells without
cloning a human embryo.
William Hurlbut, a doctor and professor at Stanford University and a
key proponent of ANT, said Talent's proposal is a "positive approach,
something that can move us forward with social consensus."
Hurlburt is a member of President George W. Bush's Council on
Bioethics.
But supporters of embryonic stem cell research say there is no hard
evidence ANT will work. Some worry it will undercut more promising lines of
study.
Steven Teitelbaum, a professor of pathology at Washington University,
is among them. "Is our goal to complicate the science and delay the possible use
of the science? Or should we be moving forward as rapidly and efficaciously as
we can?" he asked. "What this involves is a politicization of science."
Talent said Friday that he expected both sides in the stem cell debate
"to be very tentative" about his alternative plan. "What I'm trying to do is
offer something both sides can support as a matter of common ground."
For the moment, Talent may have failed in that goal. Sam Lee, head of
Campaign Life Missouri, an anti-abortion lobbying group, observed, "I'm very
concerned that by taking this middle-of-the-road position, he is going to have
both sides unhappy with him."
|
|
|
|
  |