Frontdesk by David Waggoner

Since the start of the AIDS crisis in the United States in the early eighties, people living and dying with AIDS (as well as their loved ones and caregivers) have been concerned about the politics of research and development. To be sure, AIDS activists and the world’s cutting-edge scientists and public-health officials have helped make gains—the FDA fast-tracking of potentially helpful antiretroviral drugs prior to approval, to name one. The compassionate-use waivers for people willing to try drugs prior to approval, to name two. Time was not on the side of people living with HIV/AIDS. Since then, the clock has slowed—for many, not all. Check the time in China, Thailand, Vietnam, Botswana, South Africa, Eastern Europe, Russia, or India, and you’ll see the hour and minute hands are racing so fast they’re going to pop right off the face.

R&D roadblocks still exist, and not only in the world of AIDS. I find it disheartening that the Bush administration, renewed for another four years, has taken a less-than-generous stance on something as innovative as stem-cell research. Embryonic stem cells, with their ability to morph into any one of the 220 types of cells and tissues in the human body, could potentially treat medical conditions as commonplace as diabetes, cancer, and Parkinson’s disease. Stem cells from umbilical cords and adults have been looked at as well, but seem less successful. (A paralyzed South Korean woman did walk again, however, thanks to repair to her damaged spine from umbilical cord blood.) Some scientists think that stem-cell research could be a boon to the treatment of those living with HIV/AIDS. Theoretically, stem cells could be cultivated to replace depleted T cells. Mind-boggling research puzzles still abound, however. And funding lags behind leaps of the imagination.

As Ron Reagan, this month’s cover story, shares, President George W. Bush’s resistance to the unrestricted use of embryonic stem cells is discouraging. Says Bush, federal funds are to be used only for research on sixty existing embryo stem-cell lines “where a life-and-death decision has already been made.” The embryos for these lines have already been destroyed. Harvesting stem cells would destroy more embryos, and Bush is uncomfortable with what he sees as federally funded abortion. Abortion is legal, say supporters of stem-cell research, and the embryos would be destroyed anyway. Why not put them to this potentially helpful and humanitarian use?

This is a difficult and politically volatile issue, to be sure, and positions for and against it cross traditional party lines. But it’s especially difficult if, say, you watch your father succumb to the ravages of Alzheimer’s and know that stem-cell research could be a benefit to curing the disease, as Ron Reagan did. The irony will probably not be lost on the readers of A&U. Many in the AIDS community remember former President Ronald Reagan as someone who let “morality” stand in the way of firing up the engines of AIDS research sooner. On his watch, he seemingly allowed American homophobia to justify his silence about one of the worst pandemics this side of the Middle Ages. (Though Ron Reagan has a different view of the situation.)

At the very least, let’s not allow “morality” to keep our mouths shut. Let’s debate about the pros and cons of stem-cell research openly, vigorously, and with one common goal in mind: to find a cure for a variety of human ills. Let’s talk more about creating embryos from scratch, as Virginia researchers did. Let’s not throw up our hands when people’s lives are at stake. Let’s remember the clock is ticking.

December 2004