Stem cells, politics and the progress paradigm.

The analysis of Parliamentary debates provides the opportunity to assess the political context of Canadian legislation, particularly in controversial areas such as stem cell research. Parliamentary debates surrounding the recent Assisted Human Reproduction Act, (1) which lasted nearly a decade, were dominated by religious conservatives. At the forefront of the debate were issues such as the moral status of the embryo and the regulation of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). The resulting restrictive statutory provisions that ban SCNT ultimately arose from a convergence of rhetoric on dignity and the moral status of the embryo, and the resultant promotion of adult stem cell research. Approach We qualitatively analyzed the Canadian Hansard debates concerning stem cell policy from 1994 to 2004 by assigning codes to full text databases. (2) While the majority of the debates related to ethical issues, we focused on descriptions of scientific research by politicians, references to scientific progress, both proven and speculative, economic arguments, references to media coverage and direct quotes from scientific and other experts because the media and experts are major sources of information for politicians. The Parliamentary Debates Descriptions of Scientific Research We found Canadian politicians lack an understanding of scientific research, resulting in inflammatory statements on both costs and benefits of embryonic human stem cell research. Politicians generally misunderstood the process of obtaining embryonic stem cells and SCNT, a methodology used in both therapeutic and reproductive cloning. Both therapeutic and reproductive (human) cloning commence with the use of SCNT. However, reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning for research purposes are used for different reasons with significantly different endpoints. Politicians generally conflate the two procedures. For instance, building upon the public's distaste for reproductive cloning, one member described the research of the Raelians, a Canadian research group who claim to have successfully cloned a human being, (3) in conjunction with therapeutic cloning. The member stated that "if we took one of [the Speaker's] cells, extracted the nucleus and put it into an ovum, one could stimulate it electrically and allow it to grow. The so-called therapeutic clone would be to take the immature model of Mr. Speaker and extract an organ, if he needed one, killing the clone in the process. That is so-called somatic nuclear cell transfer or therapeutic cloning." (4) Another member stated, "I would suggest that most members of the House do not understand the difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning. Certainly most people in Canada do not totally understand the difference between the two. In reality, there is not any difference. It is the same process." (5) Such statements demonstrate the lack of understanding of scientific research by politicians, and underscore the need for further education of all policy makers on issues relating to stem cell research prior to the creation of ideologically driven legislation. Alternatively, and of greater concern, these statements may also indicate a willingness of politicians to mislead the House and the public on controversial scientific research on the basis of ideology. Statements on Stem Cell Research The debates on both adult and embryonic stem cell research were dominated by the opposition parties, primarily the Canadian Alliance, which later merged with the Progressive Conservatives to become the Conservative Party, without any significant response from the governing party. It could be implied that the majority's silence demonstrated its unwillingness to assume the political risk of associating itself with the support of controversial research. Whatever the reason, however, the result was a debate largely centered on the moral status of the embryo and based upon the ideologies of the religious right and the "god squad" of the Liberal party. …