Reporter: Stem cell decision may open door for lawsuits

Goldstein says research companies that own stem cell lines may not readily give them up.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Recent polls and the generally muted opinion of most politicians and scientists indicates most of America positively greeted President Bush's decision to back limited funding for stem cell research.

But what will the nation think about the president's decision one, five or 10 years from now? Time magazine reporter Andrew Goldstein talked with CNN's Kyra Phillips about this on Saturday, analyzing the delivery and implications of Bush's announcement.

PHILLIPS: So are you surprised by the decision?

GOLDSTEIN: I actually was, somewhat. When Karl Rove floated the idea of this kind of compromise over a month ago, most people dismissed it because they thought that it wasn't going to please either side. You end … disappointing Catholics and religious conservatives because we're still funding the destruction of human embryos, we're profiting from that. And you have scientists who say that it doesn't give us enough genetic diversity to really move forward.

VIDEO Watch President Bush's speech on federal funding for stem cell research (Part 1) (August 9) Play video (QuickTime, Real or Windows Media) Watch President Bush's speech on federal funding for stem cell research (Part 2) (August 9) Play video (QuickTime, Real or Windows Media) More video     MORE STORIES Bush to allow limited stem cell funding   Adult stem cells or embryonic? Scientists differ   Reaction mixed to stem cell decision     EXTRA INFORMATION Reaction:Political, ethical, medical   In-depth: The stem cell debate     What President Bush's decision means Bush will allow federal funding for research on 60 lines of embryonic stem cells. These lines of cells have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely but not all have been approved by the National Institutes of Health, which sets federal standards for research. Embryonic stem cells have the potential to turn into any other kind of cell in the body, and have been looked to as possible treatments for Alzheimer's disease and Type I diabetes.

PHILLIPS: How effective do you think his speech was for the people that were a bit confused, not quite sure which side they wanted to take? Do you think he convinced them to join his camp?

GOLDSTEIN: I think his speech was excellent. There were some flash polls done right afterwards that showed that … 75 percent of the people who watched the speech ended up agreeing with his decision.

But more importantly, what he wanted to do in that speech was to appear presidential. This was his first address to the nation since his inauguration. And really, how he ended up deciding or what he ended up deciding was not as important as being able to walk America, in that 10 minute speech, through his (thought) process and then say, "Look, I am a thoughtful guy. I can do this job."

PHILLIPS: There are two political battles I want to address. The first battle is specifically about politics. Where do you think the pressure will now come from? Will it be the Christian right politicians?

GOLDSTEIN: My guess is actually not. There have been some people on the Christian right who have been upset by this. But most of them have actually been kind of relieved. They felt that, you know, if it was going to go in their direction, it would have happened a lot earlier. And so a lot of them were very, very worried that he was actually going to approve the Frist compromise, which would have (backed) much more extensive funding of stem cell research.

I think what's going to happen is scientists are going to have harder access to these cell lines, because most of them are under patents or they're in different countries. If it turns out that this doesn't open the avenues for research that Bush says it will, then I think you're going to get a lot of pressure from the scientific community and from all the patients groups that want to expand this a lot further.

PHILLIPS: That was my next question, these cell lines. Most of them are owned … by private companies, right?

GOLDSTEIN: Right.

PHILLIPS: So how do you mix that with federal funding?

GOLDSTEIN: That's going to be the sticky issue right now. Most of these companies are private biotech companies that are out for making profits, and they want to have the ability later on down the road -- when this eventually (generates) cures -- to be the ones who profit from it.

Many of them may be willing now, at first, to go ahead and let researchers play with what they've done. But the question is going to come later on, to who actually owns these stem cells? Who should make the money? Who has royalties? It's very, very murky.

PHILLIPS: I see major lawsuits. Do you agree?

GOLDSTEIN: Yes. It's going to be (a variety of) people who might be able to sue. How about the moms who gave up the eggs to allow those stem cell lines to exist? Do they have any rights when five years down the line, or 20 years down the line, suddenly there are cures that are making billions of dollars for these companies? Should they have any access to that money?

PHILLIPS: One quick question before we let you go, Andrew, the moral question. I was reading Karen Hughes, the president's adviser, said that he did not cross the moral line with this decision. Do you agree with that and what do you think this decision says about the morals of our president?

GOLDSTEIN: It's very fine parsing of language to say that he did not cross the moral line. He is now saying that well, he's not funding research that involves the further destruction of human embryos, but he is relying on research that involved the past destruction of human embryos. I don't know. If you talk to most ethicists, they would say that that's really a legitimate ethical distinction.

It's working for Bush right now and I think he can actually make the argument. But it's a very fine parsing. I'm not sure that it's going to really fly.