Richard Doerflinger Discusses Stem Cell Research
Source: CNN's "Inside Politics"; July 11, 2001

Richard Doerflinger Discusses Stem Cell Research

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: The following is a transcript of an interview on
CNN's "Inside Politics"with Richard Doerflinger, a leading pro-life voice
on embryonic stem cell research. Doerflingers represents the pro-life
outreach of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. CNN's Judy Woodruff
conducted the interview.]

WOODRUFF: I also talked today with an opponent of stem cell research,
Richard Doerflinger, of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. I asked
him if it is his understanding that President Bush is looking for a
compromise, a way to permit some stem cell research.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DOERFLINGER: I think some staff in the administration are looking for such
a compromise. I don't think it's going to work for one reason -- one
reason for that is that the idea of just using existing cell lines, the
ones where the embryos have already been destroyed for their stem cells
under the NIH guidelines are simply not going to be enough to meet what
the researchers feel is their demand. They're finding out more and more
that these cultures are not indefinitely prolonged. They don't survive
indefinitely the way they once thought. They're going to need a great many
more of these embryos and these cell lines in order to do their research.
So I don't think it works even on practical grounds. And I think it would
be a bad move in terms of policy because it would give up the principle
and then try to limit it in what I think would be unconvincing way.

WOODRUFF: You mean, to try to find a compromise such as what you
described_

DOERFLINGER: Well, I think it's more of a transitional step than a
compromise. It's to say, "We're going to implement the Clinton plan but
we're only going to implement it for a little while and then we're going
to suddenly stop even though that would actually prevent the research from
actually getting anywhere. It's going to be years before this embryonic
stem cell research were to provide any benefit to humans if it ever were
to provide such benefits.

WOODRUFF: Even if it's years away, Mr. Doerflinger, what do you say to the
tens of hundreds of thousands of people in this country who are suffering
from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, whatever it is, spinal
cord injuries or who will be suffering, who are looking if not for a cure,
for something to alleviate their suffering_

DOERFLINGER: I think there are great many treatments we can point to. The
most promising treatment for diabetes right now, for juvenile diabetes,
for example, is not embryonic stem cells. They've had mouse embryonic stem
cells for 20 years and they still haven't figured out how to use them to
cure mice of diabetes. What's happening in human patients today, right
now, there are the 15 patients who are treated with adult pancreatic islet
cell transplants have been greatly helped by these adult cells. Nine of
the 15 patients remain insulin-free to this day up to two years later
after the transplants, and people are now beginning to do more and more
trials on this in the United States. There's use of islet cells from pigs
even that can be modified a certain way that are curing this in animals.
They talk about human trials in a year or two. The breaking treatments and
cures for these diseases are not coming from embryonic stem cell. I think
there's been an enormous amount of hype and some very unrealistic
expectations built up about them.

WOODRUFF: Well, I know we're not going to resolve that now, but you are
correct. There's been a great deal written and reported about the fact
that most of the advances are expected to come from the embryonic stem
cells, but I understand you have a different view here.

What about Senator Gordon Smith's comment that when it comes time to
deciding where life begins, in his view, it's in the womb of the mother,
and not as he put it, in a refrigerator, in a petri dish with two cells_

DOERFLINGER: Well, we're talking about embryos that are a week old and are
about 200 cells. But setting that aside, life doesn't ever begin in the
womb. It begins -- fertilization takes place in the fallopian tube
ordinarily. It's been taking place in petri dishes in IVF clinics for a
long time now. A lot of kids have been born that way. And until now,
nobody's told me that they weren't just fully as human as everybody else.

I think this is a make weight argument to justify a position that people
are taking for other reasons. Even our worst opponents, if you will,
President Clinton own bioethics advisory commission, all of them had fully
admitted that this is a form of human life in the laboratory. They just
think that there are times when you can destroy human life for research,
and I don't think you can.

WOODRUFF: And finally, Mr. Doerflinger, what about the comment by Senator
Smith that, in his view of Catholics, a group you represent, many more of
them agree with his position than with yours_

DOERFLINGER: Well, I don't think that's true. I think there are some polls
that have been taken where Catholics and others were asked: Do you support
stem cell research_ I would say yes to that question. So the fact they got
70 percent is meaningless. When you ask people whether they support
research that requires destroying human embryos for their stem cells, you
get 70 percent against, not just Catholics but everyone else. And if you
ask further about what we should do now when we don't really agree yet
which of these approaches to research might be the most useful, a vast
majority of people say, "Let's fund those morally acceptable alternatives,
the adult stem cell research and other alternatives first, to see if we
don't even need to go the way of killing embryos for their stem cells." I
think that's going to be a widely supported position.