Mary Woodward Lasker Award
for Public Service

Thank you so much to the Lasker Foundation jury. I must say it's extremely overwhelming to be in the same room with so many brilliant minds. It is a tremendous honor to receive this award. But being recognized for public service on behalf of medical research only reinforces my belief that we must remove the obstacles that prevent medical research from truly serving the public. One hundred and twenty-eight million Americans suffer from presently incurable diseases. Fifty-four million Americans live with disabilities. That is an enormous and unacceptable percentage of the population.

We have many great scientists who want to serve the public, who want to see people get better. And yet we let political and religious influences interfere with public policy that would allow them to move forward. Why do we do this? In congressional hearings, patients, physicians, legal experts, researchers, theologians, and others have their say. But when the time comes to make decisions about public policy, there is an undue influence from politics and religion that is detrimental to patients. Other countries around the world have considered the same ethics of scientific research and reached conclusions that put patients first.

Let's look at the case of Israel. Scientists there are governed by secular law, not religious doctrine. The Jewish faith holds that a person is a person three months after conception. But secular law says that people achieve that status only when they are born. In the debate about what to do with stem cells, secular law prevailed. As a result, scientists there are allowed to conduct research on stem cells derived from any source. There is strict government oversight, and regulatory bodies that govern the work. But because the secular choice was made instead of adopting a policy based on religious beliefs, Israel is now a world leader in advancing science that will benefit patients.

When I was there recently, I met a young man who had suffered a complete transection of his spinal cord due to a gunshot wound two years earlier. He had a procedure done at the Weizmann Institute, followed by two years of intense physical therapy which was paid for by the state. Today he is able to walk, even though he needs the support of parallel bars. If someone had told me in 1995 that an individual with that kind of injury would walk two years later, I would have said that it's science fiction—simply impossible. Well, long ago I decided not to let the word impossible enter my vocabulary. That's why I'm probably a scientist's worst nightmare: I'm one who says, "Why can't you do this? Why is it impossible?"

Perhaps it's my job to offend some scientists. I'm not asking them to be reckless or unprofessional, but I do want to reinforce a sense of urgency. I was injured eight and a half years ago, but even sitting here today I feel the same about my situation as I did on the day I fell off a horse and my life was saved by quick-thinking EMTs and a brilliant neurosurgeon. Scientists working on applied research (as opposed to theoretical research) must not be too timid or become insensitive to people who are suffering and want them to take reasonable risks. I believe I speak on behalf of patients who are willing to accept failure as a necessary aspect of moving science forward. We want researchers to think less like academics and more like EMTs, whose primary function is to save lives.

In that regard, Israel is a model for the world. There daily life is uncertain and dangerous. A sense of urgency permeates every level of society. While Israeli scientists are motivated by intellectual curiosity, when they make a discovery that can benefit patients they have the courage to apply it. Other countries around the world are following suit.

These countries have put the public interest first. The UK has created a stem cell bank and passed some of the most progressive laws in the world. Today UK researchers are ready to export purified human embryonic stem cell lines that can be used in therapy for patients around the world. Australia permits federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. China, Singapore, Sweden and Switzerland are all part of a movement that is likely to leave the U.S. far behind. That has happened to us before. Now we must act quickly if we want to avoid repeating past mistakes.

In the mid-1970s federally funded research in the U.S. was paving the way for in vitro fertilization. But conservatives objected to "test-tube babies" and funding was withdrawn pending the recommendation of an advisory commission. During this delay, baby Louise was born in an IVF clinic in the UK. The term that frightens conservatives today is "human cloning." Because it's difficult for the public to separate complex ideas, human cloning has come to symbolize both reproductive cloning, which should be banned, and therapeutic cloning, which should be encouraged and funded. As a result the federal government is gridlocked on the issue, and that is tying the hands of the scientists.

Public opinion polls show that nearly 70 percent of the American people are in favor of stem cell research in its entirety. The majority also believe that scientists can be held to the highest ethical standards without the involvement of religion. Regardless of what any of us think, the Constitution requires religion and matters of state to remain separate.

I find it ironic that during the campaign of 1960, John F. Kennedy had to defend himself against challengers who were wary of electing a Catholic president. Speaking before a gathering of Episcopalian clergy that summer, he emphatically stated that his religious beliefs would never interfere with the discharge of his responsibilities as President of the United States. Today we have a president who is openly proud of his religious beliefs and how they influence the decisions he makes in office.

It's unfortunate. It doesn't serve our scientists; it doesn't serve the public; it needs to change. At this point the change will have to come from a grassroots movement. It's been done before. In the 1980s the federal government did almost nothing to support AIDS research. A grassroots movement forced politicians to respond. Today the NIH spends $1.8 billion on AIDS research every year.

Because the government finally accepted the will of the people, our friends, neighbors and loved ones who would have died 20 years ago are living with HIV. But we can't afford such a long delay again. Science, government, and the private sector must work together now. If we want to maintain our preeminence in medical research and earn the respect of our allies, who are no less moral than we are, we will have to combine curiosity, courage, and respect for the Constitution.

Again let me say what an honor it is to receive this award. I'm both surprised and extremely grateful. With all due respect to the distinguished scientists gathered here today, I promise—in the spirit of Albert and Mary Lasker—to accept it as encouragement to be even more annoying and difficult in the future. Thank you so much.