Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
President Obama Signs Order Allowing Federal Funding for Medical Research; Medical Hope, Moral Obligation; 2009 Spending Bill Still Hanging; No Job and Bills to Pay
Aired March 09, 2009 - 10:59 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: And good morning, everyone. It is Monday, March 9th, and here are the top stories we're following for you in the CNN NEWSROOM.
Live this hour, President Obama about to overturn a controversial order from the Bush era. Restrictions on federal financing of embryonic stem-cell research will end.
Too big to fail, too far gone to bail. GOP senators say zombie banks ought to be declared dead and buried no matter their size.
Good morning, everyone. I'm Tony Harris. And you are in the CNN NEWSROOM.
President Obama stepping into the medical and moral debate over stem-cell research. This hour, the president signs an executive order reversing Bush administration policy that limited the use of federal dollars. Supporters say the research could lead to cures for everything from diabetes to Parkinson's to paralysis. Critics object to destroying human embryos.
We are covering the politics, the science, and the ethical debates, starting with White House Correspondent Suzanne Malveaux and Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen. We will hear from them live in just a moment, but first, Suzanne's report detailing the president's decision.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The executive order today, the fulfillment of a controversial campaign promise.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we are going to discard those embryos, and we know that there's potential research that could lead to curing debilitating diseases, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's Disease, you know, if that possibility presents itself, then I think we should, in a careful way, go ahead and pursue that research.
MALVEAUX: President Obama's order will direct the National Institutes of Health to develop revised guidelines on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research within 120 days. It will allow scientists to apply for government grants to support any stem-cell research. Under President Bush, taxpayer money for embryonic stem- cell research was limited, to be used for just a small number of stem cell lines that had already been created from destroyed embryos.
GEORGE W. BUSH, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.
MALVEAUX: Obama administration officials say this is a broader effort to end the Bush administration's practice of putting ideology over science. Critics who oppose the research argue that federal funding could lead down a slippery moral slope.
REP. ERIC CANTOR (R), MINORITY WHIP: Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research can bring on embryo harvesting, perhaps even human cloning that occurs. We don't want that. That shouldn't be done, that's wrong.
MALVEAUX: Supporters say the new policy opens the door for research that may lead to cures for diabetes, Parkinson's Disease, and spinal cord injuries.
SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D), MISSOURI: My religion teaches me to heal the sick. And God gave us this intelligence to find cures for the sick. I think it's a great moment.
MALVEAUX: Critics argue, it is immoral to use stem cells from human embryos because it requires destroying them. They say stem cells taken from the adult bone marrow, the skin or placenta, can also create cells that could lead to curing disease. The issue crosses party lines with notable Republican Nancy Reagan, John McCain, and Arlen Specter in support of Obama's plan.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HARRIS: Suzanne joins us live now from the White House.
Suzanne, great to see you.
You know, I heard this question a lot over the weekend -- why is the president doing this now?
MALVEAUX: Well, certainly this is one of his priorities of the campaign. Obviously, he's dealing with the economic crisis. But one of the things that this executive order does is that it really does put this in motion rather quickly.
In about four months or so, you'll have these new guidelines in place. Obviously, members of Congress, they can go ahead and enact legislation, they can go forward and codify this into law. But it was something that the president really wanted to put his stamp on. And part of that, too, is to take a stand here, because they believe the last eight years the Bush administration was about putting politics and policy above science.
So they want to take a very strong stand on that, as well -- Tony. HARRIS: Well, you're alluding to something that we'll talk about a little bit later in the hour, Suzanne. The president is also signing this memorandum that really makes the president's case for separating science from politics. So let's talk about that maybe in a half-hour.
MALVEAUX: OK.
HARRIS: Suzanne Malveaux at the White House for us.
Suzanne, appreciate it. Thank you.
MALVEAUX: Sure.
HARRIS: You know, in order to understand the stem-cell debate, we need to understand the science, what the cells are, where they come from, and their potential for curing disease.
Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen is here to help us dig a little deeper on that.
And Elizabeth, let's start with this question -- what makes stem cells so special, so coveted for scientists?
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SR. MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, stem cells have really an unusual characteristic. They come from embryos, as you might guess, embryonic stem cells, and they're blank cells. They're cells that have the potential to be any kind of cell in the human body, but they need to be programmed.
So, Tony, let me give you sort of the hope.
HARRIS: Great.
COHEN: You take a cell from inside an embryo and you program it to become, let's say, a heart muscle cell. Then, when someone has a heart attack, what you can do -- when someone has a heart attack, what you can do is you could theoretically use those cells to fix the damaged heart muscle. That is one of the hopes for stem cells. It hasn't happened yet. That's one of the hopes.
HARRIS: Well, I'm going to ask you a tricky one here, but you can do it, you're up to the task. Why is this such a contentious debate?
COHEN: The reason why, simply put, you've got to destroy an embryo in order to make embryonic stem cells. Now, some people have no problem with that, other people say it's murder.
These are embryos that are sitting in fertility clinics. Couples make them in order to get pregnant. Now, they often have embryos that they don't use, and they are sitting there on dry ice.
Some people say, well, hey, if they're just going to sit there on dry ice, why not use them towards getting scientific advances? Other people say those are human beings and we should not be killing human beings.
It all depends on how you view those embryos. And you know what, Tony? You can't even argue this.
HARRIS: Right. Right.
COHEN: If you think it's a human being, you think it's a human being. If you don't, you don't.
HARRIS: Yes.
Hey, Elizabeth, is there any kind of animal testing going on right now? I'm just sort of curious as to what kind of results scientists are getting from these cells.
COHEN: Yes. Embryonic stem cells have been used in animals.
For example, embryonic stem cells have been used on rodents that have been paralyzed. And so you can see this little guy here is having a hard time walking.
HARRIS: Yes.
COHEN: And what they did was they t hen give him embryonic stem cells, and he was then able to walk better. So they have had -- there you go, there you see the after shot.
HARRIS: Yes.
COHEN: So they have used these with some success in animals. They are just now starting to use them on human beings. There is the first known clinical trial starting up in this country, Tony, where they're going to use embryonic stem cells on folks who have been -- had spinal cord injuries.
HARRIS: Right.
COHEN: And they don't know yet. They don't know if it's going to work or not.
HARRIS: OK. Elizabeth, if you would, stand by. I've got another question for you in just a moment.
You know, actor Michael J. Fox has been an outspoken proponent of stem-cell research. Fox suffers from Parkinson's Disease. He says he understands the concerns raised by the research, but urges opponents to consider the other side too.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL J. FOX, ACTOR: People that are against stem-cell research, embryonic or otherwise, whatever, I couldn't respect them more. If they've prayed on it and they thought about it, and they can't get their head around it or their heart around it, then great. I mean, fantastic. I admire them and I respect them. All I say to them respectfully is, if there's a majority that also prayfully and thoughtfully and emotionally and intellectually and in every other way weighed this and came on the other side and said, no, I think it's the right thing to do, to very carefully tread these waters to save these lives, then you have to respect that too.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: Christopher Reeve was a proponent of stem-cell research, as well. The late actor was paralyzed in a horse-jumping accident 14 years ago. After that, Reeve and his wife started a foundation funding research into spinal cord injuries. He died in 2004.
Here's part of what he told Congress in April 2000.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTOPHER REEVE, ACTOR: Why has (INAUDIBLE) discarded embryos for research? Is it more ethical for a woman to donate unused embryos that will never become human beings or to let them to be tossed away as someone's garbage, when they could help save thousands of lives?
Our treatment with stem cells has already begun. They've been taken from umbilical cords and they've become healthier blood cells and used to cure sickle cell anemia.
Stem-cell therapy is also being used against certain types of cancer. But those are cells that have significantly differentiated. That is, they are no longer pluripotent or capable of transforming into other cell types.
For the true biological miracles that researchers have only begun to perceive, medical science must turn (ph) down differentiated stem cells. We need to clear the path of them as quickly as possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: The late actor, Christopher Reeve.
And our Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen is back with us.
And Elizabeth, we know this research is proceeding on several tracks. We've talked about embryonic stem-cell research. Adult stem cell research is going on, as well. Isn't it?
COHEN: That's right, adult stem cells are very different from embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells come from things like our skin, or come from the umbilical cords of newborn babies.
Now, these cells are not controversial. No one has any problem with taking a little bit of cells from your skin and trying to turn them into stem cells.
But here's the concern. A lot of researchers say that we should be doing both kinds of research, that adult stem cells might be useful for some things and embryonic stem cells might be useful for others. Many researchers say, why would you want to reject either one of those? However, again, people who feel that destroying an embryo is the same thing as murder, they think that we should just stick with adult stem-cell research and not do embryonic stem-cell research at all.
HARRIS: We've got a wonderful segment planned on this topic a little later this hour. And Elizabeth, you'll be helping us with that, so stay with us.
We're expecting the president -- Elizabeth, thank you. We're expecting the president's announcement at 11:45 Eastern. That is 8:45 Pacific. And of course we will bring it to you live, right here in the CNN NEWSROOM.
But some other news to get to before the president's announcement.
A pastor gunned down in front of his congregation. Parishioners screaming and praying. How they're coming to terms with the horror.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(WEATHER REPORT)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: Charges expected today against a man accused of killing a pastor while he was preaching at a church near St. Louis. Parishioners are struggling to come to terms with the tragedy.
They held a memorial service just hours after Reverend Fred Winters was gunned down during his Sunday morning sermon. Police say Winters and the shooter apparently exchanged words before the 27-year- old man fired four shots, hitting the pastor's bible and then the pastor himself.
The gunman's pistol jammed after the shooting. He pulled out a knife then. That's when two parishioners tackled him. They and the gunman were wounded and taken to an area hospital. The pastor was pronounced dead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHARLA DRYDEN, CHURCH MEMBER: Well, it's a devastating loss not only for our church, but for our community -- for all of the churches in our community, for everyone that loves the lord. It's been a very difficult loss.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: The pastor was married with two children. Police have not released the shooter's name.
Up and down, up and down, the blue chips are wandering sort of aimlessly today. The Dow Jones industrials plunged 70 points at the open but bounced back into positive territory. But right now, as you can see, down -- the Dow down five. Both the Dow and the S&P are down 24 percent for 2009.
We will keep an eye on those numbers throughout the morning here in the NEWSROOM.
The Senate is struggling to get a pork-heavy spending bill across the finish line this week. It is leftover from last year and pays the government's bills through September.
CNN's Brianna Keilar is at the Capitol to set the stage, and she joins us on the stage.
Brianna, the Senate is back today. What are we expecting?
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the showdown continuing, Tony. This, again, is that bill that would fund the federal government for the second half of this year, and it's continuing in the Senate today.
Remember, this would increase federal spending by 8 percent, more than what the government was funded for before. That's more than inflation.
There's 8,500 earmarks, Democratic and Republican earmarks, mind you, in this. And some Republicans, as well as some Democrats, saying that this is wasteful, that spending shouldn't be increased at this time.
HARRIS: Yes.
KEILAR: You know, again, some Democrats saying that, as well. And you'll recall, Tony, it looked like this bill was going to pass the Senate last week, but then Senate Democratic leaders pulled it when it became clear there weren't enough votes.
So what they're doing today, as well as tomorrow, they're going to debate about a dozen amendments, some of them Republican-proposed changes to the bill, in the hopes that they can move this through the Senate because it's already passed the House.
HARRIS: You know what, Brianna? I'm curious as to how these Congress people are defending this pork-laden bill at a time when Americans across the country are being asked to make all kinds of sacrifices.
KEILAR: Well, and that's really one of the things that some Republicans are bringing up, that this isn't the time to have some of these things in there. But it's the defense we always hear, Tony, that what's pork to one person isn't pork to another person, that these are important projects that members of Congress have secured funding for. And that's what you're hearing.
There's about 60 percent Democratic earmarks in this, 40 percent Republican in this. So there's a lot of members with a lot of different projects in this. So it is tough for them to defend. HARRIS: Well, and take this one on for us. One of the amendments that will be debated has to do with the pay increase that lawmakers usually get each year. How are they expecting to deal with that issue?
KEILAR: Yes, this is a tough vote. This is an amendment proposed by David Vitter, Republican of Alabama (sic). And it would force Congress to vote yes or no on whether it gets its yearly pay increase. That's not how it happens right now. It happens automatically.
You can imagine that politically, that works a lot better for lawmakers. So this is really a tough vote to say, hey, I should get more money. And we should mention, Tony that Congress forgoing its increase this year, but still a tough vote for the future, talking about the future, when the economy is what it is.
HARRIS: Yes.
On Capitol Hill for us, Brianna Keilar.
Good point. Brianna, thank you.
Revving up scrutiny of the auto industry. The Obama administration's automotive task force is in Detroit today. They will test drive the Chevrolet Volt, GM's electric car, and tour a Chrysler factory where the Dodge Ram is assembled.
Both General Motors and Chrysler are surviving on more than $17 billion in bailout money, and they want an additional $21.6 billion. The task force is trying to determine if the struggling company should get more of your tax dollars.
Out of work, but not out of options. You can still manage your debt even when you're unemployed.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: So the recession took your job, but didn't take your debt, and the monthly bills keep coming.
Personal Finance Editor Gerri Willis is here to help you manage your debt while you're out of work.
GERRI WILLIS, CNN PERSONAL FINANCE EDITOR: Hi, Tony.
HARRIS: And good to see you, Gerri.
WILLIS: Yes.
HARRIS: You know, please help us with this, because when it comes to managing that debt, what do you think is the first thing we should do?
WILLIS: Well, you know, first of all, you have to be concerned about, do I have a roof over my head, right? HARRIS: Yes.
WILLIS: You know, if you have a mortgage and you just lost your job, the first thing to do, call your lender, explain what happened before you miss the payments.
Now, lenders are putting together their own plans to help borrowers who are in danger of defaulting. We've talked about Citibank's plan. They just started a program that would reduce your mortgage payments to about $500 for three months if you've lost your job. Of course you have to have a Citi mortgage. But, also, Bank of America, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, they all have programs in place designed to help people who are struggling right now with their mortgages -- Tony.
HARRIS: Well, Gerri, what about credit card debt? Most of us have some, and we need to get that under control.
WILLIS: Right. Yes, and if you've lost your job, that makes it all the harder.
HARRIS: Yes.
WILLIS: You know, first, though, the bills you want to be paying when you're unemployed, it's the basic necessities -- food, shelters, utilities. After that, after all of that, then you can start thinking about the minimums on your credit card. And of course, you want to do that because you don't want to damage your credit.
The thing to do is call your credit card issuer and let them know about your situation. Creditors may agree to ease loan terms for folks who are trying to survive a jobless stent. And if you lost your job and you don't think you can even make minimum payments, you'll want to call those credit card companies and ask if you can get the payments reduced or suspended. They may do that.
HARRIS: Nice.
WILLIS: Now, you may also seek the guidance of a credit counselor -- we talk about that all the time -- who can help you put together a budget, and they may negotiate for you with creditors. Ultimately, if this goes on a long time, you may have to think about bankruptcy.
HARRIS: Oh, boy.
WILLIS: Yes.
HARRIS: I know, but it's a good point.
WILLIS: Well, you've got to do what you've got to do; right?
HARRIS: Exactly.
So I've lost my job, but I've got college tuition bills coming in. Is there a way to manage that? WILLIS: Yes, we've seen a lot of this lately. Look, if you have kids in college, you may be able to amend your FAFSA form to get more student loan aid.
Remember FAFSA? That's the document you filled out to get student aid in the first place. You can amend that, and make sure you have documents that support your job loss. Like, you have to have the pink slip.
Go to the financial aid office, ask for what they call a professional judgment review. Tony, they call these PJs.
HARRIS: Do they really?
WILLIS: Yes, but it's up to the school to decide whether they want to extend more aid. But you know, it can't hurt to ask.
And keep in mind that other situations may not entitle you to one of these PJs, like, just the fact that your 401(k) has shrunk or maybe you've had a foreclosure. That's not going to help out.
Of course, if you have other questions, send them to me at gerri@cnn.com. We love to answer your questions, we do it right here every Friday.
HARRIS: Good stuff, Gerri. Thank you. Good to see you.
WILLIS: My pleasure.
HARRIS: All right. Learn how to invest -- boy, when was the last time we had a conversation about investing? -- during a recession. Log on to CNNMoney.com, and go to our special report, "America's Money Crisis." We update this page all the time. Again, the address is CNNMoney.com.
The hairstyles change, but she is forever young. Talking about changing gears here, Barbie turns 50 today. Gear up the time machine here.
Let's take a trip to CNN.com's iReport desk. Let's check in with one of the guys running things down there, Tyson Wheatley -- "Tyson's Corner."
Wow, this had better be good. To get this story into this newscast today with what the president is about to announce in just minutes, this had better be good, Tyson.
TYSON WHEATLEY, CNN.COM: Well, what could be more special than Barbie turning 50, right?
HARRIS: Yes, OK.
WHEATLEY: So we reached out to fans across the globe, looking for people who actually are big-time collectors. And guess what? We found quite a few.
I want to start with this one here. This comes to us from Julie Miller (ph) of Tucson, Arizona.
She actually designs and sews outfits for vintage Barbie dolls. Like, you can see some examples here. She does everything by hand, and she gets inspiration from Barbie's original designers, and she says using Barbie as a model allows her basically to design and create outfits that she would never wear.
I'm going to move forward to another collection for you. This one comes to us from Sherry Atsacarala (ph). And Sherry (ph) lives in Sri Lanka, where basically she tells us that getting Barbie dolls is not as easy to find. So many of the dolls in her collections like the ones you see here come from India.
I think it's interesting. You can see here she's still keeping them in the boxes there. So, instead of taking them out and playing with them, not sure what that's all about.
Now, I saved the best for last for you, Tony.
HARRIS: OK.
WHEATLEY: This is the ultimate Barbie Dream House. So let's go ahead and zoom in on this.
HARRIS: OK.
WHEATLEY: This comes to us from Cynthia Rice (ph) of Cincinnati, Ohio. And I think what's interesting here is that she's been collecting since they first appeared on shelves. Her husband built her this three-story seven-room dollhouse.
And, you know what? I'm going to zoom in here on the living room, because I just want you to see some of this detail here.
HARRIS: Yes. Hey, as you do that, Elizabeth is here on set and she says you are surprisingly fluent in Barbie.
WHEATLEY: Oh, no, no. I don't get it at all, I've got to admit.
HARRIS: Yes. OK.
WHEATLEY: But check out the detail here. I mean, this is impressive stuff.
HARRIS: That is good.
WHEATLEY: I mean, she's sitting at the piano.
Now, check it out. Let's go to the kitchen...
HARRIS: All right.
WHEATLEY: ... where we see a bearded Ken cooking breakfast.
HARRIS: Oh, that is -- OK.
WHEATLEY: And it's not the ultimate collection. I want to know who has it.
If you're a fan, tell us, you've got to tell us. go to ireport.com, share your story. We want to see even bigger collections.
HARRIS: You liked the first bit, right, the -- yes.
COHEN: Oh, he doesn't seem like a real Barbie kind of boy to me.
HARRIS: No, he doesn't.
COHEN: But he knows a lot.
HARRIS: He does.
WHEATLEY: I didn't have any Barbies growing up, unfortunately. I had, like, the GI Joe, I had Cobra Commander and the hooded Cobra Commander. But, I mean, I don't still have them. So personally, I don't get it. But...
HARRIS: Yes, but people are into it, huh?
COHEN: They do.
HARRIS: Yes.
And your daughters...
COHEN: All four of them love them. Totally into it, house full of barbies.
HARRIS: Tyson, we lost you. Bye. Take care, Tyson. See you tomorrow.
WHEATLEY: All right. Take care.
HARRIS: All right.
Still to come in the NEWSROOM, President Obama reverses the Bush policy on stem-cell research. We are standing by for his remarks as he signs that executive order. We will bring it to you live as it happens.
And we'll get to the bottom of the ethics of embryonic stem-cell research in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: To bail or not to bail? That is the question some leading republicans tackled this week. Senator John McCain says when it comes to the nation's financial crisis, the White House should no longer bailout the failing giants.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I don't think they've made the hard decision, and that is to let these banks fail. To let General Motors go into bankruptcy and reemerge and reorganize with new contracts with labor and others. I don't think they've made the tough decisions. Some of these banks have to fail.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: So just what would happen if we let some banks or even General Motors fail? Susan Lisovicz is at the New York Stock Exchange with more.
And Susan, let's talk about this idea of letting some of the big banks, the big banks - and we could list a few of them. And I think everyone, at this point, has an idea of the top two we would be talking about - Bank of America and Citi, of course. What would happen if we would allow one of these big banks to fail?
SUSAN LISOVICZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's scary, Tony. It really is. I mean, we have seen dozens of banks fail in this recession. Many of them like Indymac, which is one of the biggest failures in U.S. banking history, were big players in the subprime mortgage market. And so, this bank had 30 offices in southern California. The FDIC guaranteed deposits, not one customer lost a dime. Shareholders, of course, were wiped out.
Compare that to Citigroup. Tony, it has operations in more than 100 countries. The ramifications of Citi's failure could be as immense as the company itself.
Now, you remember what happened in mid-September, the government decided to let Lehman Brothers fail. It's a much smaller financial institution or I should say, it was a much smaller financial institution than Citigroup. But like Citi has many internationals dealing. It pushed the credit crisis to a whole new level. That week Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch, AIG got an $85 billion bailout from the government. Since then, the Dow has lost nearly 4,800 points or about 40 percent. A lot of this, again and again, is confidence. Complete lack of confidence when you see this happening.
HARRIS: Gotcha. Susan, let me jump in, just ask you a question. So you're painting a pretty dire picture of what happens, the ripple effect of one of these really big banks failing. I'm just sort of curious, why is it Wall Street railing against a suggestion like that when it comes from someone who is as influential as Senator John McCain? And we also heard it from Senator Shelby, as well?
LISOVICZ: Well, you know, there are a lot of people influential people who have a lot of differing ideas on how to handle a very complex situation.
HARRIS: Right.
LISOVICZ: Senator McCain says we should sell off failing banks' assets. Who will buy them? That's just one of the issues there. One of the questions that is out there.
HARRIS: Yes. LISOVICZ: Billionaire investor Warren Buffet certainly on the air today talking up President Obama's efforts to help the economy. He says it's inevitable that those efforts will help some people who have made financial decisions, but that we're all in the same boat. Ultimately, we all need a sound financial system for this nation to recover. And we are not seeing that in terms of reflection of what's happening in the stock market, for sure. I mean that banking sector, financial stocks remain under enormous pressure.
Right now, we're not seeing much of anything, which is an alternative to what we saw last week, which is the roughest week so far, or one of the roughest weeks I should say for the Dow Industrials. Right now down two points. Not so bad. The Nasdaq, meanwhile, is down two points as well, Tony. Pretty quiet so far.
HARRIS: Yes. And when we talk again, I just want to follow up on this. It's the idea that we've heard a lot of reaction from the Street to what has been proposed by the president or maybe even what hasn't been proposed at this point when you hear something like that from a senator like John McCain. I'm just wondering what the real reaction from folks on the Street would be to that kind of scenario if it were ever played out.
LISOVICZ: Well, it drags down investor confidence, which is, you know, pretty much at rock bottom anyway.
HARRIS: All right, Susan, appreciate it. Thank you, Susan.
LISOVICZ: You're welcome.
HARRIS: Stem cells represent medical hope for many, but for others, the research raises moral questions. Just a few minutes from now, President Obama signs an order overturning Bush administration policies on embryonic stem cell research. The presidential order will do away with limits on using federal money for embryonic stem cell research. We're about nine minutes away from the scheduled announcement. Many conservatives oppose the move because it means destruction of human embryos. Supporters say the research could lead to treatments or cures for a wide range of diseases and conditions.
We will have live coverage of the president's announcement on stem cells. It is set for, again, 11:45 Eastern time, about eight minutes from right now.
The president's decision on stem cells, while not unexpected reopens a moral can of worms. Let's talk about that. Professor Arthur Caplan chairs a Department of Medical Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania and Elizabeth Cohen is our senior medical correspondent for CNN.
Professor, let me start with you, and I'm going to throw you a big hardball right out of the gate here. What is the moral status of the human embryo? Are we talking about life, or are we talking potential life?
PROF. ARTHUR CAPLAN, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ETHICS; UNIVERISTY OF PENNSYLVANIA: I think a lot of people would try to punt that question. But I'll give you an answer.
HARRIS: Appreciate it.
CAPLAN: I think that it is potential life. You know, it is true that every life begins at conception, but it isn't true that every conception begins a life. A lot of embryos are miswired. Even in birds and bees sexual relations, a huge number of embryos fail. So I think it's kind of a long distance between having an embryo in a dish and a baby and I don't think we can equate, and I don't think most Americans would, an adult human being with an embryo.
HARRIS: OK. And professor, let's broaden it a little bit. Are there ethical arguments to be made apart here apart from the status of the embryo?
CAPLAN: You know, I'm going to surprise you a little bit and say, not really. I think this really is a stocking horse fight about abortion, about embryos. There are some issues that come up about what's the best alternative to pursue adult stem cell. Fetal induced, pluripotent, there are all kinds of ways to get stem cells. But those are basically science questions. And even though we hear a lot right now about people saying well, there are other ways to go. There really - those other ways to go arguments are coming from people with religious or moral objections to embryo destruction. Scientific community is absolutely in agreement that you've got to pursue all strategies at this point, because it's really days, and we don't know what's it's going to deliver in terms of cures.
HARRIS: Elizabeth Cohen has a question for you.
COHEN: Art, here's my question for you. I was speaking to a woman who was an opponent of embryonic stem cell research. And she said, look, I consider embryos sitting in a fertility clinic human beings and I think it's unethical, it's murder to destroy them and I don't want my taxpayer money going to that destruction. What would you say to her?
CAPLAN: Well, I'd say this. The embryos that are left behind, and remember, Elizabeth, there are probably 600,000 in the U.S. alone left behind by couples who don't want them anymore, trying to have babies but they did or they gave up because they couldn't afford it or they got divorced or they died, those embryos' fates are sealed. They will be destroyed. Better to have something good happen, research that might benefit people in wheelchairs or help kids with juvenile diabetes, than to simply have them destroyed at the clinics. We're not going to see any other fate for those embryos other than they're going to be destroyed.
COHEN: Now, I think some folks disagree with you and would say, well, Art, you could take those embryos and give them to families that want them. There are families that would love to adopt those embryos and put them into the wife's womb and grow them into a child.
CAPLAN: You know, I would agree with that. Last year, in the United States, we had 70 - seven zero - embryo adoptions. If we really pushed, we might get a couple dozen more. Six hundred thousand embryos, roughly 100 people adopting an embryo each year, that's not the answer. I know that some people wish that we could find parents to take 600,000 embryos on, we're not going to do that. Most of these embryos are too old, they're going to wind up being destroyed. I say, and I think President Obama agrees, let's use them in research if we're going to have to destroy them anyway.
HARRIS: Well, Professor, another question here. You know the line, money is the root of all evil. And I'm just curious here, is there money to be made in this research? We can talk about the applications here for treating diseases all day. But I'm just sort of curious here, we know that California, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Illinois and other states already setting aside money for this kind of research. Is there money to be made here? Is there market here?
CAPLAN: Big money. Other countries are absolutely pushing as fast as they can in embryonic stem cell research to get ahead of us - China, India, Britain, Sweden, Israel, even Iran. So those countries are hoping to come up with some cures before we get there, patent them, sell them back to us.
Interesting question, if another country got cures from embryonic stem cell research, would the opponents actually prohibit them from being imported in here? I doubt that very much.
But the answer to your question, there is money. There is a business out there, big opportunities if you can get cures for Parkinsonism, for spinal cord injury, for juvenile diabetes, you would make a pretty penny.
HARRIS: And Professor, let me see here, I think we have folks starting to gather in the East Room of the White House. Do we have a picture of that? OK, great, pictures now, great. Folks gathering for this announcement. It's scheduled to begin in just a couple of minutes here. Scheduled for 11:45, may be a touch later than that.
Professor, Elizabeth Cohen has our final question for you.
COHEN: OK, here's the question for you, Art. For the past eight years or so, some people would say that research on embryonic stem cell research has really been hampered because the funding - the federal funding has been so limited. Have other countries gotten ahead of the United States on this research?
CAPLAN: A little bit. There is some important work going on in England. We're not clear what the Chinese are doing, they don't say much and talk much about it.
I'd say this, at the end of the day, the biggest engine driving research in the world is the National Institutes of Health. We just spend a lot of money there on basic research. Private companies don't spend that kind of money. Even foreign countries don't spend that kind of money. So when the NIH puts money into embryonic stem cell research as they will after Obama makes this announcement, I think it's still going to allow us to catch up. I think it's still going to allow the United States to take the lead in this area.
HARRIS: Professor Caplan, that was terrific. Thanks for your time.
CAPLAN: My pleasure.
HARRIS: Yes, thank you.
And Elizabeth, thank you, as always. Wow, you made me look really smart here. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Any minute now, let's see that live picture. Let's take it full. Let's squeeze whatever you want to do here. We're expecting President Obama to sign an order reversing the Bush policy on stem cell research. Live coverage as it happens.
And part of that order aims to separate politics and science. How does the president plan to do that?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: All right. The action by President Obama today goes beyond stem cell research. And as we talk about these issues, there is something else to note here, a presidential memorandum is going to be signed today that is designed to separate science from politics. I wanted to get to Suzanne Malveaux, our White House correspondent, but we may be very close here.
Well, we'll walk this right up to the president. Let's bring in our White House correspondent, Suzanne Malveaux.
And Suzanne, I believe we may have a piece of that memorandum that we can show folks and read through it. But the president, again, many would say in something of a pretty stern rebuke of the last administration, is putting a pretty clear marker down here with this memorandum.
MALVEAUX: Absolutely, Tony, I've spoken with White House officials here and obviously the director of domestic policy, Melody Barnes, talked about this over the weekend. Essentially, this presidential memorandum where she says that this is scientific integrity in governmental decision making, that that's what they want restored here. That they want this to be a country that in, her words, can put science and technology back at the heart of achieving a broad range of national goals.
Essentially, Tony, what they're saying, over the last eight years, they're accusing of the Bush administration of putting politics and policy over sound science. They bring up a number of examples. Talk about not only stem cell research, but also energy policy, education, the issue of abortion. Time and time again, they believe that the sound advice and the information and research that comes from scientists and the scientific community was diminished under the Bush administration. They feel like it needs to restore it to its proper place. One official saying here that the public policy, they have to endorse the notion of public policy must be guided by sound and scientific advice and they feel this is something that is -- can be cooperative, that it is not mutually exclusive. HARRIS: Well, I think I have the language here. Let's put the screen graph, a bit of it, from the memorandum on the screen again. Let me see if I can read it to you here. The memorandum says, "It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."
And just what Suzanne said. And Suzanne, I think the other important point here, I believe the president - Suzanne, thank you. Let's get you quickly now to the East Room of the White House and the President of the United States.
OBAMA: Thank you so much.
Well, I'm excited too.
(LAUGHTER)
Today, with the executive order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers, doctors and innovators, patients and loved ones have hoped for and fought for these past eight years: We will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research.
(APPLAUSE)
We will also vigorously support scientists who pursue this research.
(APPLAUSE)
And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.
You know, at this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand and possibly cure some of our most devastating diseases and conditions. To regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair. To spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles. To treat Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them.
But that potential will not reveal itself on its own. Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research -- from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit -- and from a government willing to support that work. From life-saving vaccines, to pioneering cancer treatments, to the sequencing of the human genome, that is the story of scientific progress in America.
When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed.
Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives.
Now, in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values.
In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research, and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.
It's a difficult and delicate balance. And many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. And I understand their concerns, and I believe that we must respect their point of view.
But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans -- from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs -- have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research, that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.
That is a conclusion with which I agree. And that is why I am signing this executive order, and why I hope Congress will act, on a bipartisan basis, to provide further support for this research.
We are joined today by many leaders who have reached across the aisle to champion this cause, and I commend all of them who are here for that work.
Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No president can promise that.
But I can promise that we will seek them, actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground, not just by opening up this new front of research today, but by supporting promising research of all kinds, including groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells.
I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.
Now, this order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let's be clear: promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda, and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.
By doing this...
(APPLAUSE)
By doing this, we will ensure America's continued global leadership in scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs.
And that is essential, not only for our economic prosperity, but for the progress of all humanity.
And that's why today I'm also signing a presidential memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making...
(APPLAUSE)
... to ensure...
(APPLAUSE)
... to ensure that in this new administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisers based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That's how we'll harness the power of science to achieve our goals, to preserve our environment, protect our national security, to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives.
As we restore our commitment to science and expand funding for promising stem cell research, we owe a debt of gratitude to so many tireless advocates, some of whom are with us today, many of whom are not.
Today, we honor all those whose names we don't know, who organized and raised awareness and kept on fighting -- even when it was too late for them or for the people they love. And we honor those we know, who used their influence to help others and bring attention to this cause -- people like Christopher and Dana Reeve, who we wish could be here to see this moment.
You know, one of Christopher's friends recalled that he hung a sign on the wall of the exercise room where he did his grueling regimen of physical therapy. And it read: "For everyone who thought I couldn't do it, for everyone who thought I shouldn't do it, for everyone who said, 'It's impossible.' See you at the finish line."
Christopher once told a reporter who was interviewing him: "If you came back here in ten years, I expect that I'd walk to the door to greet you."
Now, Christopher did not get that chance. But if we pursue this research, maybe one day -- maybe not in our lifetime, or even in our children's lifetime -- but maybe one day, others like Christopher Reeves might.
There is no finish line in the work of science. The race is always with us -- the urgent work of giving substance to hope and answering those many bedside prayers, of seeking a day when words like "terminal" and "incurable" are potentially retired from our vocabulary.
Today, using every resource at our disposal, with renewed determination to lead the world in the discoveries of this new century, we rededicate ourselves to this work.
And before I sign, I want to just note the people who are on the stage with me. In addition to our outstanding secretary of energy, Secretary Chu, we also have Dr. Patrician Bab (ph). We have Dr. H. Robert Horvitz (ph). We have Dr. Janet Rolley (ph), Dr. Harold Varmus, who's going to be the co-chair of my President's Council on Science. We've got Dr. Michael Bishop. And we also have Dr. Peter Agree (ph).
So these are an example of the outstanding scientists who we hope will guide us through this process in the years to come. And with them standing beside me, I'd also like to invite some of my colleagues from Congress who've done just such extraordinary work to share in the limelight, because you guys are still going to have some work to do. And -- but it's because of the leadership of so many of you across -- across partisan lines that we've been able to accomplish so much already.
So thank you very much, everybody. Let's go sign this.
(APPLAUSE) And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.
You know, at this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand and possibly cure some of our most devastating diseases and conditions. To regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair. To spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles. To treat Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them.
But that potential will not reveal itself on its own. Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research -- from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit -- and from a government willing to support that work. From life-saving vaccines, to pioneering cancer treatments, to the sequencing of the human genome, that is the story of scientific progress in America.
When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives.
Now, in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values.
In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research, and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.
It's a difficult and delicate balance. And many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. And I understand their concerns, and I believe that we must respect their point of view.
But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans -- from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs -- have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research, that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.
That is a conclusion with which I agree. And that is why I am signing this executive order, and why I hope Congress will act, on a bipartisan basis, to provide further support for this research.
We are joined today by many leaders who have reached across the aisle to champion this cause, and I commend all of them who are here for that work.
Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No president can promise that.
But I can promise that we will seek them, actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground, not just by opening up this new front of research today, but by supporting promising research of all kinds, including groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells.
I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.
Now, this order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let's be clear: promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda, and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.
By doing this...
(APPLAUSE)
By doing this, we will ensure America's continued global leadership in scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs.
And that is essential, not only for our economic prosperity, but for the progress of all humanity.
And that's why today I'm also signing a presidential memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making...
(APPLAUSE)
... to ensure...
(APPLAUSE)
... to ensure that in this new administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisers based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That's how we'll harness the power of science to achieve our goals, to preserve our environment, protect our national security, to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives.
As we restore our commitment to science and expand funding for promising stem cell research, we owe a debt of gratitude to so many tireless advocates, some of whom are with us today, many of whom are not.
Today, we honor all those whose names we don't know, who organized and raised awareness and kept on fighting -- even when it was too late for them or for the people they love. And we honor those we know, who used their influence to help others and bring attention to this cause -- people like Christopher and Dana Reeve, who we wish could be here to see this moment.
You know, one of Christopher's friends recalled that he hung a sign on the wall of the exercise room where he did his grueling regimen of physical therapy. And it read: "For everyone who thought I couldn't do it, for everyone who thought I shouldn't do it, for everyone who said, 'It's impossible.' See you at the finish line."
Christopher once told a reporter who was interviewing him: "If you came back here in ten years, I expect that I'd walk to the door to greet you."
Now, Christopher did not get that chance. But if we pursue this research, maybe one day -- maybe not in our lifetime, or even in our children's lifetime -- but maybe one day, others like Christopher Reeves might.
There is no finish line in the work of science. The race is always with us -- the urgent work of giving substance to hope and answering those many bedside prayers, of seeking a day when words like "terminal" and "incurable" are potentially retired from our vocabulary.
Today, using every resource at our disposal, with renewed determination to lead the world in the discoveries of this new century, we rededicate ourselves to this work.
And before I sign, I want to just note the people who are on the stage with me. In addition to our outstanding secretary of energy, Secretary Chu, we also have Dr. Patrician Bab (ph). We have Dr. H. Robert Horvitz (ph). We have Dr. Janet Rolley (ph), Dr. Harold Varmus, who's going to be the co-chair of my President's Council on Science. We've got Dr. Michael Bishop. And we also have Dr. Peter Agree (ph).
So these are an example of the outstanding scientists who we hope will guide us through this process in the years to come. And with them standing beside me, I'd also like to invite some of my colleagues from Congress who've done just such extraordinary work to share in the limelight, because you guys are still going to have some work to do. And -- but it's because of the leadership of so many of you across -- across partisan lines that we've been able to accomplish so much already.
So thank you very much, everybody. Let's go sign this.
(APPLAUSE)
There we go.
(APPLAUSE)
