By Tushar Khanna, Triangle Production/Graphics Editor
We are treading in treacherous moral waters.
That is a phrase chanted by opponents of stem cell research, one with which I strongly disagree. Embryonic stem cells are unspecialized somatic cells that are pluripotent, meaning theoretically capable of differentiating into cells of any of the body’s tissues. If the techniques and knowledge on how to artificially generate liver, kidney, and brain cells through harnessing the pluripotence of stem cells becomes known, diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Diabetes, brain diseases, heart disease, and even cancer may one day be cured.
An area of current debate is whether the focus of stem cell research should be on adult or embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Large quantities of embryonic stem cells can be easily grown in culture, while the methods to replicate adult stem cells in cell culture are not yet known. Lastly, adult stem cells are quite rare in mature tissues. The only scientific advantage to using adult stem cells is that a patient’s own cells could be extracted, replicated in culture, and reintroduced into the patient’s body, thereby avoiding immunal rejection.
Although it has not been conclusively shown whether specialized cells generated from a foreign source of embryonic stem cells will result in immunal rejection in a patient, it is a possibility. This is why it is so crucial that a large and genetically diverse source of embryonic stem cells be available for researchers to produce safe and effective treatments. Currently, the most viable source of stem cells ideal for research definitely comes from embryos, specifically the inner cell mass of a four-day-old blastocyst, the term for a fertilized egg four days after conception. So far, human embryonic stem cells have been differentiated in vitro into cells of the brain, heart, blood vessels, liver, and placenta. The debate arises because the extraction process of these embryonic stem cells for research involves the destruction of the embryo.
For pro-life advocates, the moral cost of performing such research outweighs any potential benefits. Scientists, however, are able to see the grander picture and the awe-inspiring, life saving possibilities of stem cell research. There is so much potential in such research, and as proof of it, embryonic stem cells from mice have been studied for over 20 years with awesome results. Mouse ESCs have been transplanted into animals to alleviate symptoms of Diabetes, Parkinson’s Disease, and spinal cord injuries. The implications for human treatment are astounding, and this is why it has almost blanket support from scientists, including over 100 Nobel laureates.
Interestingly enough, this is not a debate between science and religion, since there are religious arguments for it and secular arguments against it. According to leading religious scholars, Buddhism fully supports stem cell research, claiming it is part of the reincarnation of life. Furthermore, religious beliefs often change due to the discoveries of science. The Catholic Church once agreed with Jewish and Islamic faiths, that human life did not begin at the moment of conception but about 40 days after pregnancy was established, but suddenly changed Vatican doctrine after the microscopic visualization of fertilization became available in the mid 1800s. Holy texts are often misunderstood, as can be learned from Pope John Paul II’s acceptance and pardoning of Galileo. Religious (mis)interpretation sometimes impedes scientific progress which later comes to be accepted by the religious community.
Similarly, the recent politicization of this debate has further hindered advancements, but this is not a political debate. Most Democrats and Republicans alike support embryonic stem cell research, from liberal Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy to Pennsylvania’s very own conservative (and re-elected) senator Arlen Specter, who is still against abortion. Furthermore, right before Ronald Reagan’s death from Alzheimer’s, 58 senators signed a petition pleading with President Bush to ease the restrictions on stem cell research. This group of senators included liberal Democrats, one independent, and many conservatives who opposed abortion. It is thereby wholly apparent that is a bipartisan issue. But then on what grounds does the government have a right to legislate a specific flavor of morality? Is it really appropriate for the government, instead of scientists themselves, to decide what kinds of research are done?
The debate ensues because a certain faction of America’s population believes destroying an embryo is akin to murder, since they purport to hold life sacred at all stages. This group believes embryonic stem cell research is akin to Nazi experimentation on Jews during World War II. I believe this segment of pro-lifers is tragically misguided for two reasons. The first is that birth does not actually begin at conception. In the body, human eggs are fertilized but often fail naturally to implant in the uterus. Without the right environment of a womb, a fertilized egg can never become a human. Therefore, even though a fertilized egg has potential, human life can not begin until the mass of cells known as an embryo attaches to the internal surface of the uterus. Removing the embryo before this stage does not end life because it never began.
My second reason for disagreement is that using donated or discarded embryos for a humanitarian cause is clearly a less egregious action than letting them be destroyed without serving any purpose. In vitro fertilization clinics routinely create more human embryos than are needed over the course of a fertility treatment, and are therefore left with excess embryos which are simply discarded immediately or stored in a freezer for a vast amount of time and later discarded. Currently more than 400,000 embryos remain frozen. Realistically, a large portion of these embryos can be either destroyed without any potential benefits gotten from them, or used for life-saving research – it’s that simple. I am not advocating vast fetus killing factories or a world in which artificial organs are being sold wholesale and unmonitored on city streets through the black market. I simply hope wisdom, foresight, and humanitarian principles are followed now to save lives and create a better world for the sick and wounded in the future.
Unfortunately, George W. Bush has hindered stem cell research. During his first term, Bush has drastically limited federal funding of stem cell research to cell lines created by August 9th, 2001. First, these cell lines are few in number, many contaminated, most found in other countries, and many having patents owned by private companies. This has effectively reduced research opportunities to the handful of private labs wealthy enough to decline federal funding. However, these private labs are subject to minimal oversight, and their research is often not reviewed by as many peers in the scientific community, and remains under a shroud of secrecy. Private labs in top universities are using private funds and doing what they can, but it is not enough. Overall, this “ban” results in duplication of research due to the lack of communication between public and private researchers. Bush’s funding restrictions has led top scientists in the public sector to remain on the sidelines, as well as discouraged new scientists in public universities and government laboratories from delving into stem cell research at all. Furthermore, Bush’s policies have forced most of the cutting edge research to be performed in foreign countries, leaving America behind.
It is a well known fact that the first scientist to discover the technique to isolate human embryonic stem cells was Dr. James Thomson from a public American university, the University of Wisconsin. In an effort to grind a political axe and increase profits of corporations who hold the patents to approved cell lines, Bush has forced the privatization of stem cell research. Only about 21 of the initial 78 stem cell lines are available to researchers, while over 100 new lines far better suited for research have been developed since Bush’s cutoff date. The main point is that scientists need access to a large range of diverse embryonic stem cell lines to develop treatments that are good genetic matches for patients of different races, ethnic backgrounds, and overall varying genomic composition. The failure to properly allot government funding for stem cell research has resulted in the alienation of scientists in the public sector and drastically halted the scope and speed of research.
These are turbulent times we are living in. But embroiled in the mix of resounding fears of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and war is an ethical quandary that just does not belong. Embryonic stem cell research allows us to embark on one of the most promising biomedical advancements in human history. Although scientific methods and knowledge has been abused in the past, morality has as well. But the human mind is capable of such great and beautiful creations, and it is on this which we must have faith. Furthermore, we must pay careful attention to prominent spokesmen who are trying to make us realize the path we should be traveling. For instance, the man who discovered the very structure of DNA, Dr. James Watson, has recently come out with a passionate defense of stem cell research.
After this entire discussion, I have one final point for dogmatic opponents of stem cell research. Instead of allowing pessimism and fear to prevail, and forecasting stem cell research creating a world with faults similar to that of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, imagine the following: if your priest contracts Alzheimer’s disease years down the road, and is lying gravely ill on his deathbed, won’t you feel the least bit guilty that you couldn’t sacrifice a microscopic ball of cells now to aid in research that could in the future have saved the holy priest’s life?
We are treading in treacherous moral waters.
That is a phrase chanted by opponents of stem cell research, one with which I strongly disagree. Embryonic stem cells are unspecialized somatic cells that are pluripotent, meaning theoretically capable of differentiating into cells of any of the body’s tissues. If the techniques and knowledge on how to artificially generate liver, kidney, and brain cells through harnessing the pluripotence of stem cells becomes known, diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Diabetes, brain diseases, heart disease, and even cancer may one day be cured.
An area of current debate is whether the focus of stem cell research should be on adult or embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Large quantities of embryonic stem cells can be easily grown in culture, while the methods to replicate adult stem cells in cell culture are not yet known. Lastly, adult stem cells are quite rare in mature tissues. The only scientific advantage to using adult stem cells is that a patient’s own cells could be extracted, replicated in culture, and reintroduced into the patient’s body, thereby avoiding immunal rejection.
Although it has not been conclusively shown whether specialized cells generated from a foreign source of embryonic stem cells will result in immunal rejection in a patient, it is a possibility. This is why it is so crucial that a large and genetically diverse source of embryonic stem cells be available for researchers to produce safe and effective treatments. Currently, the most viable source of stem cells ideal for research definitely comes from embryos, specifically the inner cell mass of a four-day-old blastocyst, the term for a fertilized egg four days after conception. So far, human embryonic stem cells have been differentiated in vitro into cells of the brain, heart, blood vessels, liver, and placenta. The debate arises because the extraction process of these embryonic stem cells for research involves the destruction of the embryo.
For pro-life advocates, the moral cost of performing such research outweighs any potential benefits. Scientists, however, are able to see the grander picture and the awe-inspiring, life saving possibilities of stem cell research. There is so much potential in such research, and as proof of it, embryonic stem cells from mice have been studied for over 20 years with awesome results. Mouse ESCs have been transplanted into animals to alleviate symptoms of Diabetes, Parkinson’s Disease, and spinal cord injuries. The implications for human treatment are astounding, and this is why it has almost blanket support from scientists, including over 100 Nobel laureates.
Interestingly enough, this is not a debate between science and religion, since there are religious arguments for it and secular arguments against it. According to leading religious scholars, Buddhism fully supports stem cell research, claiming it is part of the reincarnation of life. Furthermore, religious beliefs often change due to the discoveries of science. The Catholic Church once agreed with Jewish and Islamic faiths, that human life did not begin at the moment of conception but about 40 days after pregnancy was established, but suddenly changed Vatican doctrine after the microscopic visualization of fertilization became available in the mid 1800s. Holy texts are often misunderstood, as can be learned from Pope John Paul II’s acceptance and pardoning of Galileo. Religious (mis)interpretation sometimes impedes scientific progress which later comes to be accepted by the religious community.
Similarly, the recent politicization of this debate has further hindered advancements, but this is not a political debate. Most Democrats and Republicans alike support embryonic stem cell research, from liberal Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy to Pennsylvania’s very own conservative (and re-elected) senator Arlen Specter, who is still against abortion. Furthermore, right before Ronald Reagan’s death from Alzheimer’s, 58 senators signed a petition pleading with President Bush to ease the restrictions on stem cell research. This group of senators included liberal Democrats, one independent, and many conservatives who opposed abortion. It is thereby wholly apparent that is a bipartisan issue. But then on what grounds does the government have a right to legislate a specific flavor of morality? Is it really appropriate for the government, instead of scientists themselves, to decide what kinds of research are done?
The debate ensues because a certain faction of America’s population believes destroying an embryo is akin to murder, since they purport to hold life sacred at all stages. This group believes embryonic stem cell research is akin to Nazi experimentation on Jews during World War II. I believe this segment of pro-lifers is tragically misguided for two reasons. The first is that birth does not actually begin at conception. In the body, human eggs are fertilized but often fail naturally to implant in the uterus. Without the right environment of a womb, a fertilized egg can never become a human. Therefore, even though a fertilized egg has potential, human life can not begin until the mass of cells known as an embryo attaches to the internal surface of the uterus. Removing the embryo before this stage does not end life because it never began.
My second reason for disagreement is that using donated or discarded embryos for a humanitarian cause is clearly a less egregious action than letting them be destroyed without serving any purpose. In vitro fertilization clinics routinely create more human embryos than are needed over the course of a fertility treatment, and are therefore left with excess embryos which are simply discarded immediately or stored in a freezer for a vast amount of time and later discarded. Currently more than 400,000 embryos remain frozen. Realistically, a large portion of these embryos can be either destroyed without any potential benefits gotten from them, or used for life-saving research – it’s that simple. I am not advocating vast fetus killing factories or a world in which artificial organs are being sold wholesale and unmonitored on city streets through the black market. I simply hope wisdom, foresight, and humanitarian principles are followed now to save lives and create a better world for the sick and wounded in the future.
Unfortunately, George W. Bush has hindered stem cell research. During his first term, Bush has drastically limited federal funding of stem cell research to cell lines created by August 9th, 2001. First, these cell lines are few in number, many contaminated, most found in other countries, and many having patents owned by private companies. This has effectively reduced research opportunities to the handful of private labs wealthy enough to decline federal funding. However, these private labs are subject to minimal oversight, and their research is often not reviewed by as many peers in the scientific community, and remains under a shroud of secrecy. Private labs in top universities are using private funds and doing what they can, but it is not enough. Overall, this “ban” results in duplication of research due to the lack of communication between public and private researchers. Bush’s funding restrictions has led top scientists in the public sector to remain on the sidelines, as well as discouraged new scientists in public universities and government laboratories from delving into stem cell research at all. Furthermore, Bush’s policies have forced most of the cutting edge research to be performed in foreign countries, leaving America behind.
It is a well known fact that the first scientist to discover the technique to isolate human embryonic stem cells was Dr. James Thomson from a public American university, the University of Wisconsin. In an effort to grind a political axe and increase profits of corporations who hold the patents to approved cell lines, Bush has forced the privatization of stem cell research. Only about 21 of the initial 78 stem cell lines are available to researchers, while over 100 new lines far better suited for research have been developed since Bush’s cutoff date. The main point is that scientists need access to a large range of diverse embryonic stem cell lines to develop treatments that are good genetic matches for patients of different races, ethnic backgrounds, and overall varying genomic composition. The failure to properly allot government funding for stem cell research has resulted in the alienation of scientists in the public sector and drastically halted the scope and speed of research.
These are turbulent times we are living in. But embroiled in the mix of resounding fears of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and war is an ethical quandary that just does not belong. Embryonic stem cell research allows us to embark on one of the most promising biomedical advancements in human history. Although scientific methods and knowledge has been abused in the past, morality has as well. But the human mind is capable of such great and beautiful creations, and it is on this which we must have faith. Furthermore, we must pay careful attention to prominent spokesmen who are trying to make us realize the path we should be traveling. For instance, the man who discovered the very structure of DNA, Dr. James Watson, has recently come out with a passionate defense of stem cell research.
After this entire discussion, I have one final point for dogmatic opponents of stem cell research. Instead of allowing pessimism and fear to prevail, and forecasting stem cell research creating a world with faults similar to that of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, imagine the following: if your priest contracts Alzheimer’s disease years down the road, and is lying gravely ill on his deathbed, won’t you feel the least bit guilty that you couldn’t sacrifice a microscopic ball of cells now to aid in research that could in the future have saved the holy priest’s life?
1 comment:
Interesting article, but it simplifies the fundamental problem. If the fertilized egg is a human life, it doesn't matter what use you put it to, or what advantage can be gained. Just like it would be abhorent to use you, the author's organs to help somebody with Alzeimers, even if it killed you, it is abhorrent to claim that because the stage of development is so early that it doesn't matter.
Instead of looking at all possible uses for embryos, we would be better served to solve the fundamental problem first, that is when human life starts. Perhaps that could be the topic of a future article.
A Triangle Editor Emeritus
Post a Comment