President Goes on TV Tonight to Reveal Position on Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research
STEPHEN FRAZIER, CNN ANCHOR: President Bush is ready to enter a heated national controversy that has scientists battling abortion foes, and which divides even his closest supporters. The president goes on television tonight to reveal his position on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The broadcast will originate from Crawford, Texas, where Mr. Bush is vacationing, as CNN White House correspondent Kelly Wallace joins us from there with a preview. Kelly, hello, again.</s>KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, again, Stephen. Well, first, we can show viewers exactly where President Bush will be delivering that address this evening. He will be doing it from a place called the "Governor's House" on his property his ranch, not too far from here. And this is the old ranch house, the place where the president and Mrs. Bush lived before their -- until their new home was built. Again, that is where the president will be delivering this address. Aides saying it was the president who decided yesterday to announce his decision by talking directly to the American people in the form of a nationally televise address. We also know the president made his final decision yesterday, and I believe we're going to show you a picture of the president working several hours yesterday, with one of his top advisers, Karen Hughes. They were working, we understand, for a good part of yesterday, on this speech that the president will be delivering tonight. We understand that speech pretty much done, and that the president will be spending some time on this day reviewing that speech and of course preparing for tonight's announcement. Now aides saying that the president definitely views this as one of the most important decisions of presidency so far, and maybe one of the most important decisions of his entire presidency. But, also, Steven, Bush advisers know that the decision is important, but also the way the president explains his decision is very important. And so we are expected to hear the president talk quite a bit tonight about how he viewed the hopes, the promise of science, as well as the questions of ethics and morality. People know the president's words will be watched very closely. Again, Stephen, aides are trying to keep this, having the president being the first to announce decision tonight. Right now, only a small handful of advisers know exactly what he is going to do -- Stephen.</s>FRAZIER: Kelly, when aides say they are trying to keep this a tightly held secret, is there any way that we -- Kelly is back with us now. We had a little blip there. Kelly, sorry about that. You just mentioned how tightly they're trying to keep this a secret. But you know how to read comings and going of various people. Are there any clues coming out of the Texas White House?</s>WALLACE: It's really hard to say, Stephen. There are a couple of clues that we have. We already know this president is against the cloning of human embryos for embryonic stem cell research. We also know, sources telling my colleague John King that this president of course very much against the creation of human embryos for this research. So that leaves the embryos that would be left behind at fertility clinics, and the question becomes, what does the president decide to do? If you at look what he said during the campaign and really just a couple of months ago, he said that he was opposed to federal funding of research that would involve the destruction of living human embryos. So a couple of questions. A, will be the president stick with that, those comments? B, will change those comments and decide to support it? Or three, is there some time of compromise here? Could he maybe try and find some middle ground, such as maybe only allowing federal dollars to use research on stem cells that have already at this point been obtained from human embryos? Again a lot of ifs, buts could, woulds. We just really don't know.</s>FRAZIER: And we know, Kelly, that he consulted with dozens of experts and also people he called just regular folks, as he was making his decision. What about consulting with people within the White House? How does the staff come down on this, or do they come down in one single way on this issue?</s>WALLACE: Now they definitely, Stephen, as you probably know, don't come down on one single way. There is a bit of a debate in the White House. You have some strong supporters of this research. The biggest backer possibly the president's Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, who believes this research could lead to new treatments in the fight against various diseases, such as Parkinson's. On the other side, you have strong opponents. You have the president's top political adviser Karl Rove, who, number one, believes that this research really is the same as the destruction of human life, but being a political adviser, we understand he's also concerned about alienating Catholic and conservatives by a decision. This White House has definitely been trying to reach out to both of those groups for 2004. So a debate even within the West Wing as well as outside the White House as to what the president should do. We heard from many advisers saying it will indeed be the president's decision and his only -- Stephen.</s>FRAZIER: Indeed. Kelly Wallace standing there on a breezy day in Crawford, Texas, and the breezes are nothing compared to the winds of political storm swirling around the president today. Kelly, thank you. Among those awaiting the president's announcement tonight is Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle.</s>SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: In the hope of a broad bipartisan majority in the Senate is that the president will choose to allow this ground-breaking research to go forward with federal funding. To support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is to come down on the side of hope for the millions of Americans suffering from diseases ranging from Alzheimer's to cancer to Parkinson's to diabetes.</s>FRAZIER: Senator Daschle, who made those remarks just moments ago, says he expected the Senate to debate stem cell research sometime this fall.</s>DONNA KELLEY, CNN ANCHOR: While critics fear embryonic stem cell research will encourage abortions, many scientists think it will lead to important advances in medicine. CNN's medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen takes a closer look.</s>ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Christopher Reeve is sure he's going to walk again.</s>CHRISTOPHER REEVE, ACTOR: If you had the FDA involved and you had everybody working together, I am positive that in 10 years I'd be on my feet. And I would be -- I would not be sitting here in a wheelchair.</s>COHEN: What does Reeve think will do this magic? It's something called stem cells. They're blank cells that theoretically could be turned into any type of tissue in the human body and could be used to treat countless diseases. So, for example, in Reeve's case, where the spinal cord was damaged, doctors could take stem cells, convert them into nerve cells, and give an injection of healthy cells to repair the damage. The same principle applies to the heart. After a heart attack, some of the cardiac muscle dies. Stem cells could be made into cardiac cells and then injected, healing the heart tissue. (on camera): So where do you get stem cells? Well, that's where the controversy starts. One major source has been aborted fetuses. The other major source has been embryos from in vitro fertilization labs, embryos that are still in the lab because parents have decided not to use them to start a pregnancy.</s>DAVID PRENTICE, INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY: The root of the debate really comes down to the ethical question of what's the moral status of a human embryo: Is it a person or is it a piece of property?</s>COHEN (voice-over): For many people against abortion, the answer to that question is clear: both for fetuses and for frozen embryos in laboratories.</s>JUDIE BROWN, AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE: A frozen embryo who is destined to be discarded is a tiny human being, an embryonic child.</s>COHEN: That's not how Reeve sees it.</s>REEVE: You don't really have an ethical problem, because you are actually saving lives by using cells that are going to the garbage. And really, I just -- I just don't see how that's immoral or unethical. I really don't.</s>COHEN: There is hope that scientists will be able to get stem cells from less controversial sources, such as from umbilical cords, but some researchers say those kinds of cells might never be as medically useful as stem cells from embryos. And so stem cells remain a debate that can never end, because it all depends on when you think life begins. Elizabeth Cohen, CNN, Atlanta</s>COHEN: Now the two sides in this issue are so polarized. But in the last week or so, we've been hearing scientist say, hey, maybe's there's a compromise that we can do. Now let's hear what Deputy White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had to say this morning.</s>SCOTT MCCLELLAN, DEP. WHITE HOUSE SEC.: This is an issue that many people, many Americans will find the more they learn about it, the more complex it is. And stem cell research in many ways is the leading edge of the new frontier of science. And as we explore the science, we need to make sure that we do so in a way that adheres to the highest ethical standards.</s>COHEN: Now if you sort of read the tea leaves a little bit, you could read into what he was saying, is this is the new frontier of science, this is possibly a good thing, we need to figure out how to do ethically. So perhaps President Bush is thinking about compromise -- Donna.</s>KELLEY: Have you heard what a compromise might be or how that might work out?</s>COHEN: Well, there are a couple of different scenarios, and let's talk about one that people seem to think would be the most likely, and that is that there are -- we're not sure how many, but maybe 50-100 embryonic stem cell lines already out there, in other words, 50-100 embryos that were already destroyed and used to make stem cells. Now what President Bush could do and what some people I've talked to hope he does is says, you know what, you can use federal funding on those stem cell lines, because they've already been made, or you can use those use for, say, another 100, but then you've got to stop, that he will put some kind of limit on it. So that's one scenario that could come up.</s>KELLEY: Something that just occurred to me, and I don't know, we might have to check it. Can you make stem cells from stem cells, or once you have stem cells out you can them once for research and they're done?</s>COHEN: Actually, that's an excellent question, and it gets to the point of stem cell lines. If you have an embryo and you can make stem cells from it, you can make unlimited numbers. You could have millions upon million. The problem is, scientifically speaking, that those stem cells all the same, all genetically the same. If you need to do research with slightly different set of genetic parameters, that one embryo might not help you. Scientist said, we need lots and lots and lots to make cures for lots and lots of different people, that's why we need genetic variety. That's why some scientist I've talked to say, you know what, if he says no new stem cells can be made, then it will shackle research. Others say, you know what, I think it will be OK, at least for the time being. I think we could live with that. The other side the folks against embryonic stem cell research I think would be horrified by the compromise. They feel that even if an embryo was already destroyed and obviously can't be brought back to life, that no one should benefit from that, that you shouldn't use research from killed embryo because they consider that sort of akin to using the benefits of the research that the Nazis did. That's how they talk about it -- Donna.</s>KELLEY: Elizabeth Cohen, thanks very much.</s>FRAZIER: You heard how complex and how involved this decision is. For an extended look at the medical and moral concerns surrounding embryonic stem cell research, we have asked two guests to join us now. Dr. Neil Theise is an associate professor of pathology at the New York University School of Medicine, and Bishop T.D. Jakes is the senior pastor from Potter's House Church in Dallas. He joins us from New Orleans. Bishop, doctor, thanks for joining us. Bishop let's go back to fundamental underpinnings, the religious objections to this. Is it because the Bible says that we can't use stem cells? Is there and kind of doctrine we go back to look at? I don't believe the bishop can hear us. While he's getting set up, let's turn now to Dr. Theise. Doctor, are you able to hear me OK?</s>DR. NEIL THEISE, NYU SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: Yes.</s>FRAZIER: Your work with adult stem cells, right, which is often cited as one way to go to avoid the construction of embryos.</s>THEISE: Yes, that's what I do.</s>FRAZIER: And how is that working out, and would you favor then federal research for embryonic stem cells as well as adult stem cells?</s>THEISE: Absolutely. I don't think you find anyone more optimistic about what adult stem cells can do than I am. I won't be able to do that potential without the parallel work on embryonic stem cells. They are not independent either or propositions. They are linked parallel courses. We need both of them, to understand both of them, and to move forward.</s>FRAZIER: In other words, a sort of scientific way of covering all bets?</s>THEISE: Not only that. As someone just said on the program, embryonic stem cells can divide in unlimited fashion. Adult stem cells can't do that as best as we can tell you. If we can understand how embryonic stem cells do that, perhaps we can then use those mechanisms to get adult stem cells to do the same thing. Without the embryonic research, we're going to be walking around in the dark, making guesses as to how to get adult stem cells to do that. Embryonic stem cells already know how.</s>FRAZIER: What kind of conditions do you hope to provide therapies for with your work, doctor?</s>THEISE: Oh, the usual list that people mention. Some of the most common things, diabetes, Parkinson's. I think this is going to be useful for cancer research. I think it's going to be useful for autoimmune diseases, people with genetic diseases, metabolic diseases, all of these, may be amenable to this sort of therapeutic intervention.</s>FRAZIER: Let's include now Bishop Jakes who we believe is now better able to hear our comments, including those of Dr. Theise. Bishop Jakes, what's the fundamental, theological underpinning for opposing this kind of research?</s>BISHOP T.D. JAKES, POTTER'S HOUSE CHURCH: Well I think from the theological perspective, we haven't confirmed that the lives and well being of the unborn are being protected. And what complicates it even more than the theological issue is the political posturing that's going to take place in this decision. As we open the door, our concern is how wide will the door open and where will it stop. We don't want to see embryos harvested and their lives compromised for research. I think it's a very dangerous step for us to take.</s>FRAZIER: Is there a position in your church as to when an embryo becomes a human or is it the very earlier moment of conceptions, as it is, say, in the Roman Catholic Church?</s>JAKES: Yes, we believe that life begins at conception, and we've been very strongly advocates for the lives of the unborn, and I really feel -- I'm here in the middle of a woman's conference with 65,000 women, and I feel like I share the predominant opinion that these woman have, that the lives of the unborn be protected. We certainly are excited by the potentials, that there are many, many sick people who could benefit from the research. But we have not exhausted all of the other options that are afforded us before we go forward with the embryonic research.</s>FRAZIER: Let's ask, Dr. Theise about this. This seems to be a reasoned position where there's another way to go that does not offend certain sensibilities, doctor. As you and I just discussed, we'd like to keep going on all fronts.</s>THEISE: As I said, think that to keep going on all fronts is going to be necessary to manifest whatever therapeutic options we can have from either adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells. They're not independent. One doesn't substitute from the other. And I'd like to address the earlier question you asked about biblical sources. Their is a biblical test which the bishop didn't raise. And that's in Exodus, chapter 21, verse 22, where clearly the fetus, the only mention in either the Christian or Hebrew bibles as far as I know, is discussed in terms of being property, not an adult life. Two verses later, it says life for life, but in this particular verse, it say that a miscarried fetus, because a woman has been struck by a man, should be compensated by the husband of the woman as property. So there's a biblical text that I think supports the idea that embryos, while being life, are not the equivalent of adult human life, and are treated in the biblical test as property.</s>JAKES: But I want to respond to that. I don't think that that text leaves us with the liberty to harvest embryos for research. I don't think that that text was written nor intended to respond to this kind of debate that we're having. To isolate that one text against the preponderance of texts that support that life begins and conception, is of great concern to me and to many other of fate. I think it is a complex issue. I think that the president is wise to take council from all sides of the perspective dealing with it. But it's very, very important that we don't justify what we're about to do from one isolated text, because I think it's dangerous to represent all aspects of faith from one text that perhaps may be misinterpreted here in the doctor's comments.</s>FRAZIER: Well, I think what the comments from both of you reveal is the seriousness with which so many people come to this whole debate, and you can see how the president would be having a difficult time. And I'd like to thank you both now for these comments. And I know you with us will be awaiting the president's remarks tonight. Dr. Neil Theise, Bishop T.D. Jakes, thank you both very much.</s>JAKES: Thank you.</s>THEISE: Thank you. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com