Part 1
President Bushs decision to delay federal funding of embryonic stem cell research until he had a chance to reevaluate the issue has charged a national debate on the practical and moral implications of such research. Bush is expected to announce his decision by the end of summer, but the issue is so complex that it is difficult for the average person to appreciate all of the details. It is an important issue that will have far-reaching implications.
The media has framed the debate to appear to be a simple choice between using leftover embryos for research or discarding them, between saying "yes" or "no" to using federal tax monies to fund this research. Who could argue against research meant to help those suffering with degenerative conditions like Alzheimers disease, cancer, Parkinsons disease, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, and diabetes? There are multitudes of people fighting these tragic disabilities and the promise of healing offered by this research is a poignant argument in favor of pursuing the technology.
However, there are additional questions which need to be answered. Are embryos (fertilized human eggs) the only or the best source of stem cells? If embryos are the best source, will discarded embryos be enough or will laboratories mass-produce to support their research? When does life begin: at conception, at the womb, or at birth? Are the potential benefits of the research worth opening the inevitable Pandoras box? These questions should be addressed before we step on the slippery slope from which there is no turning back. Unfortunately, we may already be sliding down that hill.
Why Stem Cells?
Scientists studying degenerative diseases are excited about stem cell research because they hope to implant these baby cells into damaged tissues and spur them to grow into new, healthy cells. Stem cells seem promising because a single cell has the potential to develop into any of 210 different types of human tissue. As in the case of an embryo, one cell divides into many and the many cells begin to specialize, forming the different organs and tissues in the developing baby.
At the same time, because the process of extracting stem cells from embryos results in the destruction of the embryo, pro-life advocates have opposed the procedure as well as the even more controversial use of aborted fetuses as a stem cell source.
Adults and children also have stem cells. These respond to a special signal protein produced by cells when they are damaged. These stem cells are rushed to the damage site and work quickly to make repairs. Therefore, embryonic cells are not the only source for acquiring stem cells. Stem cells have been harvested from adult bone marrow, fatty tissue, and umbilical cord blood.
However, stem cell research is still in its earliest stages, and at this point it is believed that adult stem cells are only able to change into a limited number of types of human tissues. For example, test on mice demonstrate that stem cells from the adult brains of mice can be nurtured into heart, liver and muscle tissues. Other experiments show that umbilical cord blood can be made to grow into brain cells. Researchers believe that because embryonic stem cells are more versatile in their ability to grow into virtually any of the 210 varieties of cells, they offer a greater potential for success.
Although there may be some limitations in the versatility of using the stem cells collected from bone marrow, fatty tissue, and umbilical cord blood, the prospects are good and do not present the type of moral and ethical issues that embryonic research does. Research has only just begun to scratch the surface in this area of science and it is yet to be seen if the arguments for the superiority of embryonic stem cells will hold up.
What is not mentioned in the federal funding debate is that the research is already underway in privately funded laboratories. In these laboratories there are no doubts about forging ahead with the research. Not only are they experimenting with surplus embryos from fertility clinics, but embryos are being created for the sole purpose of research. For this very reason some members of Congress have advocated federal funding as a means of setting standards and controls on the process.
Next week, in part two of our stem cell report, we will discuss the moral, ethical implications of stem cell research. We will also describe some of the almost Frankenstein results of recent embryonic research. Are these discoveries really a blessing or will they prove to be a curse?
Related Links:
• Scientists Clear Ethical Barrier - The Globe And Mail