Return to Transcripts main page
Campbell Brown
Obama Administration Approves Expanded Stem Cell Research; Will New Afghanistan Strategy Work?
Aired December 02, 2009 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CAMPBELL BROWN, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Tonight, here are the questions we want answered. Will stem cell research approved today lead to major medical breakthroughs in the near future? And what of the moral issues at stake? Our newsmaker tonight, the head of NIH, the National Institutes of Health, a devout Christian and a devout scientist who is leading the whole effort.
Plus, what will it take to make President Obama's Afghanistan surge a success?
THOMAS FRIEDMAN, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Karzai's got to change. This guy's been running a kleptocracy, OK, that has a lot more in common with a mafia family. He's got to change from running a kleptocracy to running a decent government.
BROWN: Tom Friedman on what we need to win an Afghanistan.
Also tonight, our intriguing person, seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong talks his battle with cancer. Is America doing enough to defeat the disease?
LANCE ARMSTRONG, FORMER TOUR DE FRANCE WINNER: This is the only place in the world that I would want to be diagnosed with cancer.
BROWN: Plus, do you know who your ancestors are? More and more Americans are getting a big surprise when they explore their family trees.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There probably are a huge number of people here in the United States who are related to each other, but just don't know it
BROWN: Our special series, "Genealogy: Identity Quest," begins tonight.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is your only source for news. CNN prime time begins now. Here's Campbell Brown.
BROWN: Hi, everybody.
We are going to start tonight, as always, with the "Mash-Up." We're watching it all, so you don't have to. And our top story tonight are the tough questions on Capitol Hill over President Obama's plans for Afghanistan. The president sent the A-team to face the skeptics today, Hillary Clinton, Bob Gates, Admiral Mullen. They were pummeled by Republicans on Capitol Hill who support the surge in troops, but not the president's timeline for bringing them home.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: The president announced that we would begin withdrawing a hard date of July 2011. But at the same time, he said conditions on the ground. Now, those are two incompatible statements.
Which is it? It's got to be one or the other. It's got to be the appropriate conditions, or it's got to be an arbitrary date. I -- you can't have both.
ROBERT GATES, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: As I suggested, we will have a thorough review in December 2010. If it appears that the strategy is not working and that we are not going to be able to transition in 2011, then we will take a hard look at the strategy itself.
MCCAIN: I think that's got to be made very clear, because, right now, the expectation level of the American people, because of the president's speech, is that we will be withdrawing regardless of conditions on the ground. I think that's the wrong impression to give our friends, it's the wrong impression to give our enemies, it's the wrong impression to give the men and women who want to go over there and win.
BROWN: A little later, Secretary Gates made a more forceful defense for that exit strategy. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GATES: Are the Taliban going to be more emboldened than they are because of this announcement? I don't think so. Are they going to lie low for 18 months? That would be terrific news, because that would give us open field running. Are they going to go back to Pakistan and wait for 18 months? Terrific. It gives us the opportunity, without opposition, to help the Afghans build.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Now, the Afghanistan debate obviously not dying down any time soon. Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Tom Friedman is going to join me in just a bit. He disagreed with the president's decision, but now looking at ways to try to make the strategy work. That's coming up a little bit later in the hour.
To Iraq now, where many American troops are already moving out. The deadline for all combat troops to leave Iraq is the end of the August. And that means a huge operation now getting under way. Take a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From Humvees to generators, the U.S. military's 17,000 logistical soldiers in Iraq handle anything and everything. It's a colossal operation. On an average night, more than 120 convoys move throughout the country. Many of these vehicles will leave Iraq within days bound for Afghanistan.
This is the SSA, or supply support activities, yard. This is where all the materials come that need to be distributed to the remainder of the troops that are still in Iraq. U.S. forces have been here for more than six years and moving this amount of equipment makes it the largest effort of its kind since the Vietnam War.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Up to 50,000 troops will remain to advise the Iraqis.
The man who threw his shoes at then President Bush in Iraq got a taste of his own medicine today. Take a look at this. He was speaking at a news conference for Iraqi war victims when a member of the audience took aim, this shoe attacker, a fellow Iraqi who reportedly was defending U.S. policy.
I'm sure you remember last December, when it was then President Bush ducking not one, but two shoes. Take a look at his very quick reflexes. He served one year, the gentleman, in jail for the attack and was released in prison just this past September.
And now to the latest on the White House party crashers. Tonight, for the first time, the Obama administration said staffers didn't do all they could to keep two uninvited guests out of last week's state dinner. And they're adding new screening procedures to keep it from happening again.
Meanwhile, the investigation continues into the couple's claims that they were in fact invited.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A White House official tells us the e-mails are from Michele Jones, the Pentagon's liaison to the White House.
Jones said in a statement: "I did not state at any time or imply that I had tickets for any portion of the evening's events."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On the day before the dinner, Jones tells the couple she is still hoping to get tickets for the arrival ceremony. Then a word of caution: "I still haven't given up, but it doesn't seem likely."
On the day of the event, at 8:46 a.m., Jones tells the Salahis: "I'm still working on tickets for tonight's dinner. I will call or e- mail as soon as I get word one way or another."
ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: You got to have an invitation to get into the White House. You've got to have one of these to get in the dinner. It's an invitation.
JOSEPH BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I just assumed like everyone else that they were guests. They acted like they were -- you know, they knew everyone in the room.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Tomorrow, a House committee will hold a hearing about the security breach, but the White House won't let Social Secretary Desiree Rogers answer questions. And as of now, the Salahis are declining to testify.
And now to new revelations from super golfer Tiger Woods. Today, he apologized for -- quote -- "transgressions" and said he has let his family down, that statement on his Web site as another woman claims a relationship with him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The P.R. fiasco blasted into the stratosphere with new allegations of an affair. Cocktail waitress Jaimee Grubbs seen in this TV reality show tells "Us Weekly" see and Tiger were an item starting in 2007. She produced a voice mail she claims came from Woods two days before Thanksgiving and that middle- of-the-night crash.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, it's Tiger. I need you to do me a huge favor. Can you please take your name off your phone? My wife went through my phone and may be calling you. So, if you can, please take your name off that, and, what do you call it, just have it as a number on the voice-mail, just have it as your telephone number. That's it. OK? You got to do this for me. Huge. Quickly.
All right. Bye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Within hours, Woods responded, but only on his Web site, where no one could ask questions.
"I have let my family down, and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Woods is still at his home, where he crashed his SUV early Friday morning.
Turning now to a bit of a shocker from one of the iconic TV moms. You might remember Meredith Baxter from the series "Family Ties" in the '80s. She played the mother of Michael J. Fox's character, Alex P. Keaton.
Well, today, on NBC's "Today Show," she came out of the closet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEREDITH BAXTER, ACTRESS: I'm a lesbian. And it was late -- a later-in-life recognition of that fact.
MATT LAUER, CO-HOST, "THE TODAY SHOW": But you were married three times with five children, and they're saying, wait a second, when did this happen?
BAXTER: It's an excellent question. And some people are saying, were you living a lie? And the truth is, not at all.
This has only been like for the past seven years. I got involved with someone I never expected to get involved with. And it was that kind of awakening. There's been some level of concern just because I am so private. And, you know, I was -- I knew I was pushing it.
And I guess I was taking this step, thinking, OK, let's just let it happen. I did not want some tabloid to take a story and make it up. So, I wanted it to be in my own words.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Meredith Baxter says her five real-life kids are all very loving and supportive.
There was a lighter moment in Congress today, after being grilled on Afghanistan. Secretary of State Clinton was congratulated on her daughter Chelsea's recent engagement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D), NEW YORK: First, please give my heartfelt congratulations to the youngest Clinton on her decision to make a monumental move in her life.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Thank you. It was a very long, thoughtful process.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: And that brings us to the "Punchline" tonight. This is courtesy of Jimmy Kimmel. Apparently, someone wasn't happy about the effect President Obama's speech had on the prime-time TV schedule. Check this out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, "JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE": Unfortunately, his address he had tonight meant that all the networks had to bump their programming. We here at ABC had to bump "A Charlie Brown Christmas," which made one very usually laid back beagle highly, highly upset.
(LAUGHTER)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
(LAUGHTER)
KIMMEL: It's war. Nobody wins.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: And that is the "Mash-Up."
When we come back, big medical news today. Human stem cell research gets a green light from the government, very controversial, but also offers hope of a potential breakthrough and potential breakthrough cures. Tonight's newsmaker, the man in charge of it all. He's a top scientist, also a devout Christian. He will be talking with us in moment.
Plus, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Tom Friedman, find out why he says we simply can't afford to escalate the war.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Thirty thousand more U.S. troops are going to Afghanistan, and they will start coming out, supposedly, in July 2011. Tonight, Democrats and Republicans are criticizing the president's plan for Afghanistan. The question, though -- it is his decision -- going forward, will it work? And the man in charge over there thinks so.
CNN's cameras were granted access to General Stanley McChrystal's briefing to the troops today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL, U.S. COMMANDER IN AFGHANISTAN: What we're going to do now is be in tremendous position to go forward. I think we have got a foundation on which to build where we go forward. So, I have exceptional confidence right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: President Obama spoke candidly with a small group of journalists about the surge just hours before last night's speech. And one of them was award-winning "New York Times" foreign affairs columnist Tom Friedman. His latest book, "Hot, Flat, and Crowded," just came out in paperback.
And I spoke with him just a short time ago.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: General McChrystal basically getting what he wants with these additional troops, you think it's a bad idea, I know. Explain your thinking.
FRIEDMAN: Well, it's not that I think it's a bad idea. It's that I understand this is a really difficult choice that the government has to make.
My preference would have gone in with a much smaller footprint, try to work with what we have in Afghanistan, local warlords, basically, you control this area, we will pay you off, rather than try to in there with a big footprint. We have to stay. I understand that.
What worries me, Campbell, is that the effort we will have to invest, time, men and women and material, in Afghanistan, at a time when we desperately need nation-building at home, I really question whether the big footprint approach as opposed to a small footprint approach was really the right way to go.
And I'm not sure the president ever got from the military a small footprint coach.
BROWN: As an offer on that table.
FRIEDMAN: As an offer, as a real strategy.
BROWN: And you just mean, given the state of our economy right now, our limited resources, that how on earth can you take on something of this magnitude?
FRIEDMAN: We have to make choices, that my priority and I think our country's priority right now has to be nation-building at home. We can't play the role that we need to play in the world without strengthening our economy, our education system, our innovation capacity.
And I really question -- if this were year one of the war, that would be one thing -- whether in year eight of the war, we should be doubling down and taking the bigger approach, rather than the smaller approach. This is a hard call. I recognize that. But that's what my gut tells me.
BROWN: You had the benefit of being a part of an elite group of people who actually got to have lunch with the president yesterday just before the speech, and hear him really lay out his case to you.
Presumably, you challenged him a little bit and gave him your perspective as well. I mean, how did you answer some of those concerns?
FRIEDMAN: Well, the president knows, certainly when you listen to him, that this is really hard. This is a bet. And I would say the bet is this, that in the next -- between now and July of 2011, we can create an Afghan government that will be decent enough, decent enough, that Afghans are ready to not only follow that government, but fight for that government.
Well, that's a big bet. Why is that a big bet? Because President Karzai of Afghanistan, Campbell, he's both the reason for the surge and the beneficiary of the surge. OK? Let's remember that we're surging in Afghanistan because his government was so corrupt, Afghans actually preferred in some cases to with the Taliban. That's why we're surging. OK?
And that's the number-one reason. So, we have clear them out, build a space where you can have a decent Afghan government -- this is the president's argument -- that people will want to be loyal to and fight for. It's going to be a heavy lift, OK?
BROWN: But the train has left the station, let's say. The decision is made, for better or worse. You know this region. You have written so much about this. So how optimistic are you? Or how do we put this in context? How do we manage our expectations? And what do you think is really, really possible?
FRIEDMAN: Well, if I were doing my own checklist for people, what to watch for, how will you know -- what does winning look like? Let's start there.
BROWN: Right.
FRIEDMAN: And my attitude is, look, the train has left the station, I don't want my country to fail. I don't want my president to fail. So, going forward, I'm going to be thinking about, how do we succeed?
BROWN: Right.
FRIEDMAN: What are we looking for? We're looking for a self- sustaining, decent Afghan government that the Afghan people want to take ownership of.
Those are all really important words. It's got to be self- sustaining. Otherwise, we can't get out. It won't be self-sustaining unless it's decent. And unless it's decent, they won't want to own it. So, that is what we're trying to achieve.
To get that, we need two big -- I would say three big things. The first is, Karzai's got to change. This guy's been running a kleptocracy, OK, that has a lot more in common with a mafia family, where government positions were literally sold, OK, so you could rip off people and rip off international aid. He's got to change from running a kleptocracy to running a decent government.
That's going to be a big change, OK?
BROWN: I was going to say. Given the track record...
(CROSSTALK)
FRIEDMAN: ... that's number one.
Second, Pakistan has got to change. Pakistan has been supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan as a way of controlling Afghanistan, to have strategic depth against India. Well, the Pakistan military has now got to stop obsessing about India and strategic depth there and focus on strategic depth at home. So Pakistan's got to change.
And what they both have to change, Campbell, both Pakistan and Karzai, al Qaeda has been their meal ticket. See, because al Qaeda was there, all this international money flowed in.
BROWN: Right.
(CROSSTALK)
FRIEDMAN: ... said, you need us for al Qaeda. OK? Karzai can say, you can't leave. You need us for al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda was like the shiny object over here. Look, we got to -- we have got to understand, we have got to make them understand, that will no longer be your meal ticket. We will walk away from you.
Is President Obama up to that? Is our military up to that, our diplomats to that? Because they have got to understand, if you're in negotiation with someone and you are not ready to get up from the table, that negotiation is not going to end well for you. We have got to make them understand that this time, we are serious.
We will get up from the table. And have a nice life with Mullah Omar. And if that doesn't happen, OK, if we can't get Pakistan to stop supporting the Taliban, if we can't get Karzai to build a decent government that Afghans will want to own, this will fail. And we will be stuck holding the bag.
And so these are big, heavy lifts, but that's what victory looks like.
BROWN: To that point, then, do you think the timeline, setting a timeline, a deadline of sorts of 2011 is a good idea?
FRIEDMAN: It's a really complicated thing, because the president really had three messages. One was to his own base. I'm not going to get stuck there. The Democrats are wary about this, uncomfortable with it.
BROWN: Right.
FRIEDMAN: The other was, to Afghans, he had to say, I'm going to be there a while. You can come out of your hiding, give us the intel, tell us where the Taliban are.
BROWN: But not so long that...
FRIEDMAN: But not so long, because the message was to Karzai...
BROWN: Don't rely on me.
FRIEDMAN: ... don't rely on me, because Karzai and the other Afghans would say, well, if you're here, then you do the fighting. Can I hold your coat? Here, I will just put that up on my notch, and I will sit back, and pop popcorn and kind of watch you do the fight.
So, the president was really balancing those three messages. And so I understand it was very, very difficult. He had multiple audiences. This is really hard. This is the problem from hell. Can I say that on this network? (CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
FRIEDMAN: This is truly -- I have great sympathy for the president. But our country's in the middle of it.
My gut instinct was, when I think of all of these things and our nation-building challenges at home, was, God, I wish there was a smaller way to try to do this. Maybe there isn't. The president decided for many reasons there wasn't.
Therefore, we have got to help him succeed, because it's us. This is not somebody else. This is our show.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: And that was "New York Times" foreign affairs columnist Tom Friedman, the author of "Hot, Flat, and Crowded."
Tonight, Bank of America says it will pay back all of the bailout money that you loaned them. That coming up in the download.
Plus, our special series, "Genealogy: Identity Quest." Learn everything about your family tree with a simple swab test.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you go back to the time of the pre- revolutionary America, which is about nine or 10 generations, there probably are a huge number of people here in the United States who are related to each other, but just don't know it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: A setback for same-sex marriage tonight, that coming up in our political daily briefing a little bit later.
(NEWS BREAK)
BROWN: A major development in medical news today -- the government approved the first use of some new lines of human embryonic stem cells for research. For many people, obviously, this raises very serious moral issues. It also offers the hope of new cures for everything from Parkinson's disease to paralysis. Tonight's newsmaker is going to give us his perspective on all of this. He is the top scientist from the National Institutes of Health. He will be with us when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Today, the National Institutes of Health made a major announcement on stem cells, one that could lead to breakthroughs in the treatment of diseases like Parkinson's, cancer, paralysis. Starting today, scientists who get taxpayer dollars can conduct research on 13 human embryonic stem cell lines that were previously off-limits. Many more lines are likely to be approved, but critics of the research say that using the cells, which come from days-old embryos, amounts to destroying human life.
Here to help us make sense of the science behind today's announcement is our newsmaker tonight, Dr. Francis Collins. He is the director of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Collins, so good to have you here. Appreciate your time. Thanks for coming on.
DR. FRANCIS COLLINS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH: Glad to be with you, Campbell.
BROWN: So, supporters of stem cell research say that today was a watershed moment. Tell us what's changed with this announcement, specifically.
COLLINS: Well, today, these 13 stem cell lines, after a very careful review of the conditions that had been previously set forward by the National Institutes of Health, were approved for federally funded researchers to carry out scientific experiments to try to understand what we can learn from these stem cell lines about critical issues that relate to human health.
This has been in the works since last March, when President Obama signed an executive order, opening up the opportunity for these newer stem cell lines to be used for research funded by the federal government. And, today, that now comes forward, in the reality of having 13 lines, and as you mentioned in the opening, many more not far behind.
BROWN: Now, for those of us who don't know exactly how this works, what is the research potential -- explain it to us -- for just one embryonic stem cell line?
COLLINS: Sure.
The way these lines are derived is to pick out of an early embryo -- and let me be clear -- these are embryos that would otherwise have been discarded as part of in vitro fertilization clinic activities.
And what one can do is to take a certain type of cell from that early embryo and turn it into a line, which is to say cells that will grow indefinitely in the laboratory, and that have a potential to turn into virtually any kind of cell the body might need, a liver, or a brain, or a blood cell, they can all be derived from one of the stem cell lines.
The excitement here is to be able to use those to understand how early steps in human development work and how sometimes they don't work. And then to apply that information to understand diseases better and ultimately to treat things like Parkinson's disease, like diabetes, like spinal cord injury. BROWN: And given that, I mean that's what is often talked about in terms of the areas of treatment, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries in particular, so does this mean that we're likely to see breakthroughs in those areas of research?
COLLINS: Well, Campbell, that's the big question. There's a great potential here, but frankly research has not been moving as swiftly as it might in this area because until now that's newer lines derived since 2001, have not been available for researchers who have funding from the National Institutes of Health to work with them. And so the field has not moved with the same kind of speed that it might otherwise have.
We really don't know what the potential is here. And I want to be clear that we should be careful not to overstate the likelihood that this approach is going to result in breakthroughs in those diseases. But it is certainly an exciting new pathway, one that's only come along in the last ten years. And now we have the chance to really push forward and see what can be learned and just how quickly can we test out those ideas of the ways in which this could treat terrible diseases that we currently don't have good solutions for.
BROWN: And to that point, testing them out -- you know, people I think understand that most of this research is happening in a lab, not in people. And how close are you for getting us to the next step, of seeing these treatments out of the lab and to patients who may ultimately benefit?
COLLINS: Well, in fact, the very first human clinical trial of human embryonic stem cells was approved by the FDA earlier this year. It's a trial being run by a company called Geron (ph), so it has not used federal funding. And it is aimed to try to treat spinal cord injury. That trial has not yet enrolled its first patient because there are many considerations here about safety. But we are on the pathway towards beginning to test out the potential here in a real human clinical situation. And obviously, one of great importance, trying to come up with a solution for people who have sustained spinal cord injuries from traumatic experience.
BROWN: All right. Dr. Collins, stand by, if you will. We're going to take a very short break. When we come back, there is a lot more we want to talk about here, including the questions about faith and science. The ethical dilemma that is facing a lot of doctors and patients when it comes to embryonic stem cell research. That's a question I know that you have grappled with and explored yourself.
Also when we come back, tonight's intriguing person, we're going to have my interview with Lance Armstrong, the passions and the secrets of a champion. Stay with us. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Today's stem cell announcement has scientists celebrating. The critics -- many scientists celebrating. The critics are outraged that President Obama lifted restrictions on using human embryonic stem cell lines. For them, the bottom line is this. The stem cells come from destroying embryos and they say that that equals destroying a human life. And my newsmaker tonight says that that is simply not true. But his reasons may surprise you.
We are back now with Dr. Francis Collins. He's, again, the director of the National Institutes of Health. Thank you once again for being with us.
And obviously, there are a lot of moral and ethical concerns about this. We've been having this debate for quite some time. But explain to us how it works because the stem cells research in how you approaching it. The embryos you use, they had to make very specific ethics criteria. Walk us through what that means.
COLLINS: And I'm really glad we're having this part of the conversation, Campbell, because I know a lot of people are concerned about whether this kind of research is ethical and whether it violates our long-held and important principles about human dignity and sanctity of life.
The way in which these stem cell lines were derived and they were all derived in the past using non-federal funds is from, in fact, embryos that are created in the process of in vitro fertilization. You probably -- many people listening have encountered couples who have gone through this or they've gone through it themselves trying to be able to have a child. In that process, when one creates those embryos, you generally run the risk of ending up with more than it is safe to implant. And in fact there are hundreds of thousands of these embryos that are frozen away in in vitro fertilization clinics, or that are simply being discarded because that's the wishes of the parents and there is no reason to keep them in their view.
So the question that many ethicists have posed and people both of faith and people who come out of from a different perspective have concluded that, in fact, ethically, isn't it more justifiable if those embryos have been created to use them for a purpose that might help somebody with a disease, as opposed to simply discarding them. All of the lines that were approved today were derived in fact from those excess embryos that otherwise would have been discarded.
And it seems to me with that kind of argument, even those who feel strongly about the sanctity of life, when asked to balance the pros and cons of discarding versus trying to do something useful to honor that particular source of human material would say maybe we're better off doing what we've just done.
Let me point out that President Bush was the first to approve this kind of use of stem cell lines for federal researchers to work with back in August of 2001. But at that point, a deadline was set that no lines derived after that could be used. That seems perhaps in retrospect to the larger...
BROWN: Right.
COLLINS: ... and there are now hundreds of better lines that have come along since then that now can be used by federal researchers. BROWN: Let me bring your personal view into this, Dr. Collins because not everyone may know that you are an Evangelical Christian and you have written that a fertilized egg is very much God's plan. And you've acknowledged that embryonic stem cell research is ethically challenging.
COLLINS: Yes.
BROWN: As a scientist, as a believer, how do you grapple with that challenge yourself?
COLLINS: Well, I would have difficulty with any proposal that involved creating embryos explicitly for research. That seems to cross the line for me personally, not speaking as a representative of the government in this case. But in the circumstance for as mentioned, the embryos are being created anyway with the benevolent purpose to try to give a child, this couple a chance to have a baby. It does seem to me as a believer, as a Christian, that it is more ethically acceptable, as long as the consent process was carefully followed and it's clear that there was no payment involved, there was no coercion involved. It was the free gift of the donors to make this available for research. That seems to me to measure up to ethical standards that are quite defensible from whatever your world view.
BROWN: And, Dr. Collins, your secular critics are watching you very closely on issues like this. You know, when President Obama picked you, Sam Harris, who is a prominent atheist wrote in "The New York Times," I'm going to read you this quote. "Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?"
What's your take on that criticism? I mean, why are so many people, in your view, uncomfortable with the idea of a man of science also being a man of deep faith?
COLLINS: Well, I actually think most people aren't so uncomfortable with that. There are certainly some outspoken critics like Mr. Harris who have taken pen to paper because from their atheistic perspective, they're offended by the idea that there might be any questions that couldn't be answered by a purely scientific, purely naturalistic approach.
But for me, while I think science is the way to understand nature and a powerful tool. And I hope it leads to the revolution in medicine that we are all hoping and praying for. There's some other important questions like why am I here. And does God exist? And what's the point of life? And how did the universe begin anyway? That science is not well positioned to ask.
Isn't it a good thing to ask those questions, too? And if so, we need something more than science to go there. We need theology, we need philosophy, we need faith.
BROWN: Dr. Francis Collins, a very interesting conversation. I really appreciate you taking the time to chat with us tonight, Dr. Collins.
COLLINS: Glad to be with you, Campbell.
BROWN: And when we come back, tonight's intriguing person, my revealing and inspirational interview with the Tour de France champion and cancer survivor, Lance Armstrong, and what we can all learn from his incredible journey.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LANCE ARMSTRONG, AUTHOR, "COMEBACK 2.0": We're not any different than the athletes of previous generations, but the media is different today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Tonight's intriguing person is cycling great Lance Armstrong. After facing a devastating cancer diagnosis, he not only beat the disease. He went on to win the Tour de France seven times before retiring. But last year he decided it was time to get back on the bike and now he is sharing what it's like making that remarkable return in a new book "Comeback 2.0: Up Close and Personal."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: When you think about the concept of this comeback, because for a while, you thought you weren't even going to return to get competitive sports.
LANCE ARMSTRONG, AUTHOR, "COMEBACK 2.0": I was 3 1/2 years away so --
BROWN: What made you change your mind? I mean, was there a moment? Or --
ARMSTRONG: Well, there were a few moments. I mean, I think essentially I realized that although I'm older now and I knew that that would be a big hurdle to cross or to get over, I still loved it. I spent last summer, the previous summer before this year's tour, really trying to get in shape, and I was trying to run a fast marathon. I've done a few marathons for fun, but I wanted to run faster than I ever thought I could. And so, I just found myself getting into shape and getting into this groove of a routine like I wasn't in before.
BROWN: Right.
ARMSTRONG: Oh, this is kind of fun. And then I did a few races. I did a mountain bike race in Colorado called the Leadville 100, which I'll be on the start line and feeling like a competitor really.
BROWN: You missed it?
ARMSTRONG: Yes. It reminded -- well, I don't know. I wouldn't say that I missed it, but I said, I like this. Maybe that means I missed it, I don't know. But like -- and then we also, along the same time -- around the same time, we realized that Live Strong can tell a broader story around the world, so not just here in the United States, but we can take it to South America, to Asia, to India, to Europe. And so, to tie those two together, my passion for cycling and also fighting cancer around the world, it all made sense.
BROWN: On a personal level for somebody out there who may be battling cancer themselves or has a friend or a relative who is diagnosed having been through this, what advice would you give them?
ARMSTRONG: I think the most important thing is to be an active patient, to really understand their diagnosis as much as they can. Read about it, learn about it, ask questions about it, and really be involved, whether it's with your doctors or nurses.
The other thing, and I think probably the most important is who you surround yourself with. So obviously, your doctors and your nurses are key and critical. But your friends and your family and that core support group around you is essential. I mean, that group has to be positive all the time. Obviously, they have their moments, but like the situation I was in, my mom would have those moments where I'm sure she was just devastated but that was never in front of me.
BROWN: Yes.
ARMSTRONG: When she was around me, it was like, we're going to do this. You're going to win. You're going to live. You're going to survive.
BROWN: Staying positive.
ARMSTRONG: And it helps.
BROWN: The book also covers other ground. And in particular, there is a photograph of you where you were being tested for drugs.
ARMSTRONG: Right.
BROWN: And it's a very personal photograph, you're in the bathroom. And these guys...
ARMSTRONG: Yes.
BROWN: ... the enforcement guys come into the bathroom with you.
ARMSTRONG: They always go in the bathroom with you.
BROWN: They do?
ARMSTRONG: Yes, and they make you -- you know --
BROWN: They're standing there.
ARMSTRONG: They stand -- they stand right there, a couple of them. BROWN: But that -- why would you put that in the book? That was pretty revealing?
ARMSTRONG: Well, I think it says a lot about --
BROWN: About the process, it does.
ARMSTRONG: And the process has changed. I mean, in the old days, I'm sure in the old days, they just say, here's your cup. There's the bathroom. Go ahead and fill it and bring it back up.
BROWN: Go in the bathroom.
ARMSTRONG: Well, they wouldn't do that anymore. So now, they will accompany you in there. And then the steps just get deeper and deeper. Now they make you bring your shorts down and whatever down your knees in case you have some contraption or some device...
BROWN: Hidden something.
ARMSTRONG: ... or something like that. It is what it is, and it's never convenient because they come at all hours. And you have to report where you are, basically 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. So, I mean, I've had plenty of mornings when I'm jumping in the car to take my kids to school, and the doorbell rings.
The day that Kristen and I had our twins, we were literally walking out the back door to give birth to the twins and they were ringing the doorbell at the front. So there's those moments where you go this is just not right, but they don't know that. They don't know that you're in the middle of your life.
BROWN: Right.
ARMSTRONG: They don't know that -- but, yes, part of it.
BROWN: Well, to that point, professional athletes are under enormous pressure. And you look at Andre Agassi who came forward and revealed his drug use very recently. Or you look at Tiger Woods and what he's going through over his car crash right now. The kind of scrutiny that you get put under, what do you think about it? And how do you feel?
ARMSTRONG: Yes. You know, that's part of it. I mean, that's the downside. But the upside for athletes is what we all know. It's playing to a packed stadium or riding on top of the world where there's a million people or, you know, Tiger winning the Masters.
I mean, there's upside there. So you have all of this adulation and all of this fame and all of this fortune that comes with that. We all have to balance those two. And I think the thing that's really changed, listen. We're not any different than the athletes of previous generations, but the media is different today.
BROWN: Do you think athletes are still role models?
ARMSTRONG: Yes.
BROWN: Should they still be role models?
ARMSTRONG: Of course, yes. Yes, definitely. Look at the two examples you brought up, Andre and Tiger, they're both very good friends of mine. I think Andre was conflicted on what to do with that story. Obviously, he wanted to tell that story.
BROWN: Whether to tell the truth, right.
ARMSTRONG: And he did the right thing. And I think, you know, people might view that in a negative way. I think, by and large, people respect him for being honest about that. I know I certainly do. And nobody's perfect, as Tiger said the other day.
And our local paper, we spend part of the year in Aspen, the local paper says, if you don't want it to be in the paper, don't do it.
BROWN: Lance Armstrong, it's great to have you here.
ARMSTRONG: Thank you.
BROWN: Good luck with the book.
ARMSTRONG: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Coming up next, our special series, "Genealogy Identity Quest." Find out how easy it is now to answer the basic question of where you really come from, when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Tonight, our special series "Genealogy Identity Quest." DNA testing has become wildly popular over the past few years. Just try googling DNA kit, and you'll get something like 15 million hits. And all that testing is revealing some pretty big surprises, ancestors you never knew you had, even thousands of cousins. And our Deborah Feyerick has more on all this.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): 27-year-old model Dave Reed (ph) had no reason to doubt where his good looks came from, Ghana, the West African country his ancestors left long ago. Or at least that's what his grandmother always told him.
DAVE REED, MODEL: My grandmother, like she actually looks mixed. She doesn't look completely African-American, and I heard a lot of stuff about we have a lot of Native American blood.
FEYERICK: Last summer at a street fair, Reed got a chance to find out more through a simple cheek swab. "National Geographic" was collecting DNA samples for the first ever global Genographic Project. It's run by genetic scientist and explorer Spencer Wells.
SPENCER WELLS, THE GENOGRAPHIC PROJECT: It shows the ancient migratory roots of your ancestors and how you connect with other people.
FEYERICK: To his astonishment, Dave Reed's DNA linked him to a white man, who turns out to be his great, great, great grandmother on his dad's side.
REED: It's completely European. I'm not just straight out of Africa to the U.S. It gives me a richer understanding of who I am. And so it's just exciting to me.
FEYERICK: In the last five years, genetic testing has gone retail, becoming widely popular, and launching businesses like "23 and Me."
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People want to find relatives. They want to learn about themselves.
FEYERICK (on camera): It's this easy. You order a DNA kit online. Some of them ask you to spit into a test tube. This one into from the "National Geographic" project has you swab each cheek for about 30 second on each side. When you're done, take the sponge on the end, push it into the test tube. Send, seal, and within four to six weeks, your test results are back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, THE GENOGRAPHIC PROJECT)
SPENCER WELLS, GENETICIST, ANTHROPOLOGIST: Your mitochondrial DNA results placed here in half your group age.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK (voice-over): My test placed my beginnings in African, up through Europe. While human DNA is 99.9 percent identical, small changes called markers occur over time. People who share the same genetic markers are 100 percent guaranteed to share an ancestor.
LARRY VICX, TRACED ANCESTORS: It started with my daughter asking where do the Vicxs come from?
FEYERICK: Larry Vicx could trace his family back to tobacco farming in the 1700s, but that's where the trail ended.
VICX: If I traced my deep ancestry, it goes from Norway to Central Asia, back into Africa. And before I had that test, to be honest with you, I had no clue.
FEYERICK: Vicx, who loves the hunt, says he jumped on the chance to test all 23 pairs of chromosomes with 23 and Me, in the hopes of finding relatives.
(on camera): The German connection is who?
VICX: My cousin is Robert Stubbs, Bob Stubbs. And I knew from the name of one of my ancestors that he was no doubt German.
FEYERICK: OK.
VICX: His name was actually spelled Young, Y-O-U-N-G.
FEYERICK: All right.
VICX: But probably Jung, J-U-N-G.
FEYERICK (voice-over): Larry Vicx from Florida discovered sixth cousin Bob Stubbs in Missouri. They e-mailed but never met, until now, with help from CNN.
ROBERT STUBBS, TRACED ANCESTORS: Hello.
VICX: Hi.
STUBBS: I'm Bob Stubbs.
VICX: Bob.
STUBBS: After years, I thought we should get together.
VICX: This is wonderful. Come on in.
STUBBS: A cousin -- cousin, right?
VICX: Yes, we were DNA proven. Yes. Come on in.
FEYERICK (on camera): We thought it would be kind of interesting for you guys to meet.
(voice-over): The newfound cousins share not only a common ancestry...
STUBBS: Only one is Y, only one is mitochondrial.
FEYERICK: ... but a passion for genealogy.
STUBBS: When you go back to the time of the pre-revolutionary America, which is about nine or ten generations, there probably are a huge number of people here in the United States who are related to each other but just don't know it, like in the case of Larry and I.
FEYERICK: Stubbs says he's traced about 20,000 ancestors through DNA. Vicx has found some 5,000. They say they're related distantly to their own wives, an African-American man and President Harry Truman.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our immigrant came from Glas Shropshire (ph), England.
FEYERICK: And though it doesn't really change anything, it certainly gives these men searching for answers a deeper sense of who they are and where they come from.
Deborah Feyerick, CNN, Florida.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: "LARRY KING LIVE" starts in just a few moments. And up next, why the people of Denver could start preparing now for an alien invasion. We'll explain.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Erica Hill with us right now with the "Political Daily Briefing."
ERICA HILL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Kind of a blast from the past, isn't it?
BROWN: Yes, I love it.
HILL: New York will not become the sixth state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage. The idea actually even lost by bigger than expected margin in the state Senate this afternoon. Thirty-eight votes against just 24 in favor. Now this is actually another political blow to embattled Governor David Paterson who had promised to sign that bill into law.
And soon to be up for a vote in Colorado, a ballot measure creating an E.T. study commission. If it passes next year, the commission will come up with ways to, quote, "facilitate the most harmonious, peaceful, mutually respectful and beneficial co-existence possible between extraterrestrial intelligent beings and human beings." Might recommend having plenty of Reese's pieces on hand. Somebody has got to do it.
BROWN: Someone needs to lead the charge and it might as well be done.
HILL: Elliot, the little boy.
BROWN: Yes.
HILL: There you go. That's all you need.
BROWN: Erica Hill with us tonight with the most important news of the evening.
HILL: Arguably, yes.
BROWN: That's it for us. "LARRY KING" starting right now. Have a good night.
