CBS's Stem Cell Expert: Doctor Who Yearned to Shape Obama's Health Policy

Photo of Brent Baker.

Four days after Sanjay Gupta, in the wake of Tom Daschle's withdrawal as HHS Secretary-designate, decided to turn down the Obama administration's offer to become Surgeon General, CBS went to the CNN medical correspondent for expert analysis on the benefits of Obama's decision to allow federal funding of research on embryonic stem cells. (Monday afternoon following Obama's announcement, CNN refrained from putting Gupta on the air. Wolf Blitzer, however, brought him aboard the 6 PM EDT hour of The Situation Room to expound on what Gupta described as the “enthusiasm” and “lot of promise” offered by the administration's reversal of the Bush policy.)

CBS anchor Katie Couric fretted Obama's decision didn't do enough. Referring to a law which “prohibits the creation of embryos simply for the purpose of using their stem cells,” Couric worried: “If the ban against using tax dollars for this is not lifted, will it hinder progress?” Gupta assured her there are “plenty of embryos” available. Next, Couric cited how “the only FDA-approved clinical trial for using stem cells involved spinal cord injuries” and wondered: “What other conditions or diseases show the most potential to respond to this kind of therapy?”

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Gupta, who last Thursday announced his decision to not accept the position, yearned to guide Obama's health policy. The Washington Post's Michael D. Shear and Howard Kurtz reported on Friday that a source “close” to Gupta “said Gupta was very disheartened by Daschle's fate and fearful he was not going to get a prominent role in the health-care reform process.” Gupta “waved aside questions about what happened to Daschle” but, the Post noted, “his answers hinted at his expectation that helping Daschle to revamp the nation's health-care system had been part of his discussions with the White House. 'I had a lot of conversations with the White House folks,' he said. 'I think there was a real melding there.'”
    
The Couric-Gupta segment on the Monday, March 9 CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC: CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta is also a CBS News contributor. Sanjay, as we heard Chip [Reid] say, Congress passed legislation in 1996 that prohibits the creation of embryos simply for the purpose of using their stem cells. If the ban against using tax dollars for this is not lifted, will it hinder progress?

SANJAY GUPTA: It's a good question, Katie. I don't think it will necessarily hinder progress, mainly because there's several different sources of these stem cell lines. The federally funded stem cell lines, as you've talked about. Also the private sector has been funding stem cell lines for some me, so they're going to be added to the mix. But I think most importantly to your point, a lot of fertility clinics have embryos that would otherwise be discarded that might be sources of stem cell lines as well so if you add those up, I think you're going to have plenty of embryos for potential stem cell lines.

COURIC: As we heard, the only FDA-approved clinical trial for using stem cells involved spinal cord injuries. What other conditions or diseases show the most potential to respond to this kind of therapy?

GUPTA: When I think, when you think about these sorts of diseases, you have to think about this idea that these stem cells are going to go in there and fix a discrete problem. So problems like diabetes, for example, where the pancreas is not making enough insulin. Problems like Parkinson's disease where you're simply not making enough dopamine in the brain. Those are the types of diseases, those discrete diseases. that are probably going to be the most responsive. Same thing with spinal court injury. My guess is -- a lot of people talk about Alzehimer's disease -- but because it is so global in the brain, it might be less responsive. We'll know more about that in years to come certainly, Katie.

COURIC: Alright. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Sanjay, thank you.

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If anybody really wanted to

If anybody really wanted to know what stem cells can help with, they'd look at the 72 conditions adult stem cells can treat, and stop with the pie in the sky empty promises of the embryo-slayers, who have yet to produce anything but tumors, tremors, and dead lab rats.

http://www.stemcellr...

Who is really putting politics ahead of science? 

SECULAR SOCIALISTS

The modern liberal is a secular socialist and should be called that by every single conservative every single time its needed...this "liberal, progressive" baloney has got to stop.

They are what they are...who will pledge to do this?

(I was on a call-in radio show as a guest and this term flattened the "mod demo" host...when oh when are we going to use these words daily in the political war?) 

Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)

Ya know what the "Well let's

Ya know what the "Well let's not just throw them away!" reminds me of?

 What did Jeffrey Dahmer say to Lorena Bobbit?

"You gonna eat that?" 

Granny... You've got me

Granny...

You've got me cracking up laughing here....that was hilarious coming from you.

Missed it?

I can't believe it! I turned my back to take a phone call at work, and it was only for a couple minutes, but I must have missed Obama's argument in the ethical debate over stem cells. He talked about "science" and "progress," but I heard nothing about ethics.

I suppose the reason he favors this is because he trusts that scientists wouldn't make this decision casually.

 

=============== Update =============

William Saletan of Slate magazine is, in my opinion, an excellent writer and thinker. I come from a completely different moral perspective, and I disagree with his opinions frequently, but I have a lot of respect for him. I disagree with his endorsement of ESCR (embryonic stem cell research) but at least he can offer a solid argument.

He's written a piece well worth reading. Philosophically, it's an insightful comparison between ESCR and torture - if nothing else, it'll get you thinking.

Moral equivalence at its finest

I read Mr. Saletan's article and, quite frankly, was not terribly impressed. I have a serious problem with his torture comparison since it presumes that the civil rights of a murderous terrorist are equally valuable as the life of a human embryo, which is naturally innocent. I also fail to follow his reasoning regarding his moral misgivings. He admits that he does not "equate embryos with full-grown human beings", so why then does it matter how research scientists choose to use them? Finally, he concludes his article with a typical progressive conceit that anti-ESCR advocates are on the "losing side of history," which is a rather dramatic and premature conclusion, to say the least. He appears to be a sincere, thoughtful scholar, but his argument smacks of sophistry IMO.

Using people

I don't agree with Saletan, as I said, but I like the way he phrased the question - to what degree can we exploit human beings in the effort to save others?

"Think about what's being dismissed here as "politics" and "ideology." You don't have to equate embryos with full-grown human beings—I don't—to appreciate the danger of exploiting them." -- William Saletan

That's Obama's brief justification for his decision: "we're helping people." That broad, warm, feel-good bromide puts a benevolent blanket over the real, true ethical decisions, which are never so transparent and easy. As in the torture debate, you have competing ethical concerns; i.e., the possibility of gain for the whole, against the certainty of harm to the individual.

Let me put it this way: I don't agree with Saletan on the answers, but I think Saletan sees the question properly.

I suppose the reason

I suppose the reason he favors this is because he trusts that scientists wouldn't make this decision casually

Sota like when this Tuskegee study involving black males who were being treated by doctors for STD's but were not.  It too was a scientific study and it too was admistered by scientists and sanctione by governmnet.  I guess the men were not human beings.  When you put science ethics in taht light the ramifications are mighty bright and slap you in teh face.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

I'm still curious about

I'm still curious about this:

If one of Obama's health care "goals" is to reduce costs (read: rationing of health care a la Canada or the UK) why even bother with ANY stem cell research?

It's far too expensive, and the people who have diseases treatable by stem cells should, in the words of Tom Daschle, accept the "negative" diagnoses and go home to die and save the cost of further medical treatement for people who are really important.  Like politicians and their families.

I heard Obama's "reasoning" on this issue, and it's 100% pure politics.  He said something about looking at "facts", but goes on to encourage and endorse a line of research that has - and this is a fact - yielded no results.  Also the FACT that an embryo is a human being is lost on these people.

So, Katie, will you one day worry if we don't take the homeless and harvest them for organs, too?  Would protecting them hinder "progress"?

Every day, Obama creates new sins that cry to heaven for vengance.  We will reap the consequences of encouraging this destruction of life.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

moderncommentaries

  What a good point!  I hadn't thought it through that far, but it certainly makes sense.  Why develop life-prolonging treatments when you can just send them home to die and save the system all the money (and the cost of development too).  Huh.

ethics in science

In order to remove the question of ethics from science you would first have to remove all motivation for money in science and the governments and institutes that use that science. Of course in doing so you would be getting rid of almost all of the motivation for anyone to enter into a scientific field and therefore effectively put an end to most scientific learning.

A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections

Liberals Thirst For Death

To consider that most advances have come from adult stem cells rather than embryos, it is inexplicable the thirst for death that liberals have. The stands against human life from babies to the elderly is staggering. They would save whales, bugs, mice anything but human life. There is the obvious answer and only the obvious answer. We were made in the image of our Creator. This is disdained by most liberal policies and they have lived their lives and sought to impose on us, the destruction of faith in our Creator, and the destruction of His rational creatures.

Obama's science advisors are NOT disinterested

I doubt that Obama's advisors on biological science are any more honest, intelligent, unbiased and disinterested than his advisors on economic science.