Encouraging Embryonic Stem Cell Research
by Denise Morris on 06/08/2007 at 6:41 AM
In the near future, there could be a morally acceptable solution to the embryonic stem cell debate. This article on MSNBC.com talks about the scientists that have been working to create embryonic stem cells out of skin cells.
In a leap forward for stem cell research, three independent teams of scientists reported Wednesday that they have produced the equivalent of embryonic stem cells in mice using skin cells without the controversial destruction of embryos.
If the same could be done with human skin cells — a big if — the procedure could lead to breakthrough medical treatments without the contentious ethical and political debates surrounding the use of embryos.
According to the article, there's still a long way to go before the process could be used on humans:
For one thing, the procedure used to get the mouse skin cells to mimic embryonic stem cells wouldn't be suitable. And it's simply not known whether the mouse results can be reproduced with human cells.
There are also concerns about the treatment causing cancer, so before it could be tested on humans, a new process needs to be worked out.
Either way, I was encouraged to see this story aired on NBC Nightly News last night. The report highlighted the fact that using embryos for research is a huge moral concern for a great number of people. This process, if successful, could prevent the loss of life for thousands of babies.
1. BrooX said the following at 12:54 PM on Jun 8:
Call me skeptical or maybe my sense of cynicism is developing... High publicity of research this early in its stage -- the largest impact may be in enhancing the general public's feelings toward the generic term "embryonic stem cell research". As the general public's resonse to the basic terms becomes better, it will be easier to pass legislation allowing more liberal "embryonic stem cell" research methods. I still see a possible future connection bewteen groups like Planned Parenthood and cell research institutes. What if someday, (perhaps a decade from now) a "counselor" suggested to a pregnant woman in crisis considering abortion: "you will still be doing good, because the research may someday help save someone's life" ?
Yuck!
2. JB said the following at 2:21 PM on Jun 8:
Broox,
Embryonic stem cells are derived from a very early stage of development called a blastocyst. They are taken from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization treatment. You can't get stem cells from aborted embryos, so Planned Parenthood really doesn't have a lot to do with it - though other research can be done with fetal tissue left over from abortions, such as the development of vaccines.
Denise,
The only way this new development would result in fewer embryos being destroyed is if more frozen embryos were "adopted" by women willing to bring them to term. Since this is very rare and many tens of thousands of embryos are discarded every year already, I don't see that stopping research on IVF embryos would make any real difference.
3. BrooX said the following at 6:39 PM on Jun 8:
JB, you obviously understand a lot more about the biological side that I do. I didn't mean to imply a specific usefulness of fetal tissue. What I was getting at is the slippery-slope that public opinion rides on as phrases and technical buzz-words get associated with good things and their actual meaning to the average person becomes blurred. I predict that as the taboo against ebryonic stem cells is removed, the taboo against other ebryonic parts will fade, and people may reason that since it's ok to destroy embryos, then it's really not that bad to abort a fetus, and further, if that fetus can be used for medical research then maybe it's actually ok to abort fetuses... and so on. I'm not saying this general reasoning will happen overnight, but I could see it happening over the next 10~20 years, especially if medical science actually does reach a point where some amazing cures could be produced using human embryonic and fetal material.
The devil hides in the details and it's getting harder to scrutinize the details in everything.
4. Phoebe said the following at 7:45 PM on Jun 8:
Interesting though this is, this kind of information is not new! There are many different sources of stem cells, including amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood, bone marrow, and fat! Adult bodies contain many sources of stem cells. These kinds of stem cells are ALREADY being used successfully to treat over 70 diseases, whereas embryonic stem cells are very unstable and are difficult to use successfully. There is almost no reason to pursue embryonic stem cells in
Please see this article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/stem-cells
Here is a more technical article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/stem_cells.asp
5. James said the following at 7:46 PM on Jun 8:
My problem with embryonic stem cell research besides my #1 problem being the pathetic justification of murdering unborn children is that embryonic stem cell research really isn't going ANYWHERE.
This would be fine if no other alternative, yet similar, lines of research were yielding similar results (or lack thereof), however that's not the case. ADULT stem cell research has hit upon at least one massive result that could be enormous if the treatment actually proves to be viable. This breakthrough is in the area of treating para and quadri-plegics. Last I heard, adult stem cell research had produced a possibly viable method for repairing (or working around) the spinal damage done that caused the paralysis. This is MASSIVE.
However, because of the political situation and the poster child being embryonic stem cell research, these findings have been largely ignored.
How pathetic. Seriously potential medical breakthroughs being ignored simply because said breakthrough would seriously question the need for EMBRYONIC stem cell research. How scientific is that? It's not, and is an affront to the true scientific community who are not bound by politics, but seek the truth no matter how politically impacting it is.
6. Phoebe said the following at 7:51 PM on Jun 8:
JB, you say "I don't see that stopping research on IVF embryos would make any real difference." Does this mean we can do whatever we like with embryos, because there is no way to save them? That is a bad argument. Just because embryos are not presently treated with respect by those who fertilize them does not mean that we should disrespect and kill them! I think the government should put limitations on fertilization and other biogenesis practices to lower the number of unused embryos. And yes, embryo adoption is a great idea. What are you doing to promote it?
7. Jethro said the following at 11:29 PM on Jun 8:
James,
You rightly pointed out that as yet embryonic stem cells have not produced the same level of tangible results as adult stem cells. Many conservatives like to make that point.
However, just because embryonic stem cells haven't produced the desired results YET doesn't mean that they NEVER will. The potential is there, is requires more time and more work and it is likely that embryonic stem cells can indeed produce outstanding results. If Edison gave up after a few failures we would all be poorer. Persistence is the key.
Having said that, if you object on moral grounds that is your prerogative, but couching it in the terms you have only weakens the argument, in my humble opinion.
8. JB said the following at 1:18 AM on Jun 9:
Phoebe,
All I was saying is that I don't think that there is much justification for the statement, "This process, if successful, could prevent the loss of life for thousands of babies." I wasn't making an argument based on that, just pointing out that in the status quo ending embryonic research doesn't result in fewer embryo terminations. I think that embryo adoption is always going to be very limited because of the high cost of the procedure ($10-15,000) and the relatively small number of embryos which are put up for adoption. This latter point may be due to the fact that few people who undergo IVF are likely to view embryos as people, given the kinds of risks to the embryos inherent in the procedure.
James,
I think the scientific promise of embryonic stem cell research remains despite the progress being made with adult stem cells. Of course it's easier to get results to better differentiated adult cells, but if one can get embryonic cells working right, this would be a much more powerful tool for curing diseases. Your argument, I think, is analogous to someone telling the Wright brothers to stop bothering with trying to make airplanes because progress in automobiles is already improving transportation. Embryonic stem cells are much more difficult to work with, sure, but the rewards would also be much greater.
9. Leah said the following at 4:35 AM on Jun 9:
I want to point out that your statement that "scientists... have been working to create embryonic stem cells out of skin cells" is incorrect.
Embyronic stem cells are so named because they come from embryos. The stem cells these scientists are experimenting with are adult stem cells, but they are an equivalent to the embryonic stem cells so many people want to experiment with.
Adult stem cells have been used for years to treat more than 70 different problems.
10. Phoebe said the following at 6:17 PM on Jun 10:
Hmm. I see what you're saying, JB.
But I still doubt the potential of embryonic stem cells. The possibilities of adult stem cells have not yet been fully explored. Should we choose an ethically dubious and scientifically unstable avenue of research, just because some people promote it as a miracle cure? I think it much more likely that the proven potential of adult-derived stem cells will yield greater results. I'm not a scientist to argue this point, but my common sense makes me hesitate buying into the politically-correct urgency with which embryonic stem cells are promoted.
From a commentary by Chuck Colson:
"we don't have to sacrifice medical effectiveness to satisfy pro-life scruples. In a July 11 op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, my colleague Dr. Nigel Cameron observes that "private investors have already decided [embryonic stem cell research] is worthless." Animal experiments with embryonic stem cells "have been remarkably unsuccessful, because the embryo stem cells have a nasty habit of causing tumors." By contrast, adult stem cells have "already led to cures for what had been incurable diseases.""
Please read the rest of the short commentary:
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=3334
11. Jeremy said the following at 9:53 PM on Jun 10:
I never seem to see this issue brought up, but as a libertarian (read: conservative across the board), it seems ridiculous to me that in discussions of this sort, a more basic question is never addressed: the government should not be in the business of funding research. Period. This is WELL outside of the proper duties of government, and I would argue it is downright immoral to take money from citizens in the form of taxation in order to fund research they may or may not support, indeed that they probably simply don't care about. People should have a basic right to property, the ability to do with the money they earn as they see fit, with the government only providing those services which fall within its essential function. In an ideal world, the question of whether the government should fund embryonic stem cell research would never come up -- the government shouldn't fund any research at all.
12. Paula said the following at 12:03 AM on Jun 11:
Thanks for pointing that out, Leah. As Broox mentioned at the beginning of this thread, so much is won or lost on how language is used.
JB,
Perhaps you are right in saying that embryonic stem cells have greater scientific potential than adult stem cells. As G.K. Chesterton said, however, "To have a right to do a thing is not at all to be right in doing it". Likewise with ethically questionable actions: the potential for a glimmering end does not at all justify the means (especially when much of the same effect can be achieved ethically).
As an aside, you mentioned foetal tissue being used in vaccines. Thanks for bringing this issue to light. Those of us opposed to abortion might also like to inquire where the collagen in our personal care products comes from, for the same reason.
Everyone,
Phoebe recommended articles by Answers in Genesis. Do check this site out if you haven't already; it's very thought-provoking.
13. Denise Morris said the following at 8:55 AM on Jun 11:
Leah,
You're correct. Scientists have created the equivalent of embryonic stem cells.
14. JB said the following at 4:24 PM on Jun 11:
Paula,
Just to clarify, my understanding is that fetal tissue was used in the development of many vaccines, but vaccines today do not actually contain fetal tissue. I suppose it's a separate question whether that distinction is morally relevant.
15. Paul said the following at 9:22 PM on Jun 11:
Well Denise, technically, that wouldn't be an embryonic stem cell even if it acts like one... So I think what your really pushing for is pluripotent adult stem cells. (or is it multipotent, I forget...)
What no one seems to be reporting is that the NIH has adult stem cell treatments for about 72 different diseases, while there are currently none using embryonic. Seems like the real promise here is with the more easily acquired, less controversial adult stem cells. (Check it out on a medical journal website like pubmed if you don't believe me!)
16. Paul said the following at 9:27 PM on Jun 11:
whoops, just wanted to add that Embryonic stem cell research is going on in this country. The debate in Congress is really just a show, as it's pretty much just over whether or not your taxpaying dollars should help fund it. Don't think that it hasn't been going on for years, because it has. The research has been ongoing, and still adult stem cells have shown real promise for treating or curing diseases.
As a scientist, it makes much more sense to me to pursue something with results rather than a theoretical possibility. The real time and effort should be put into adult stem cell research.