April 19, 2009
How Many Lives do we Have to Kill to Save Another?
Stem cell research is a major issue in our day in age, which is why it is such a controversial issue. The ability for scientists to use stem cells in their research, leads to advancements in curing diseases. These cells differ immensely from other cells. In fact, there is a large ethical debate centered on research involving creation, usage, and destruction of human embryonic stem cells. However, not all stem cell research involves these ethical debates including adult stem cell research. In fact, “much success and potential has been demonstrated from research using adult stem cells.” (Avasthi). In addition, if research is not pursued then a possible “brain drain” will occur causing people of high technical knowledge to move out of their country normally due to conflict, or lack of opportunity. This is why I believe adult stem cells research should be pursued because they lack ethical issues and therefore there should be more federal funding in order to prevent a “brain drain.”
In order to understand stem cells you must understand that all stem cells have the ability to differentiate into any type of cell. “Most tissues of our bodies possess stem cells that can reproduce the different cells required in tissue. Bone marrow stem cells can produce the many different cells of the blood. These were given the name stem cells, since they are seen as the stem of a plant that produces all the “branches and leaves” of that tissue.” (Bohlin). First and foremost, stem cells are able to divide throughout life and give rise to cells that can become highly specialized and take the place of cells that die or are lost. (Avasthi). Secondly, they can be used under certain physiologic or experimental conditions. And Lastly, Grayling states, “they have the ability to develop into any tissue in the body. For example, these cells are able to develop into cells that will help with many diseases, including, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hearing and vision loss, and muscular dystrophy.”
Scientists are mainly researching with two main types of stem cells, embryonic and adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research is the more controversial one of the two. This may be because embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos at a developmental stage before the time of implantation would normally occur in the uterus. (Avasthi). Some argue that because the embryo has the potential to be a person, its moral worth is the same as a human being. (McCormick, and Scott). This, for some, means that stem cell research is research of an existing human being, thus making this research unethical. Some favor embryonic stem cell research because they are capable of forming all the tissues of the body. Therefore, some scientists find it the most promising for treatment of degenerative diseases.
However, many scientists disagree. They believe in adult stem cell research because of its moral content and its endless possibilities. Because adult stem cell research can actually be retrieved from the individual requiring the therapy and treatment, there is nothing ethically incorrect about this research. In fact, it has recently been shown that certain types of stem cells are not limited to producing cells for the tissue in which they reside. For instance, bone marrow stem cells can produce skeletal muscle, neural, cardiac muscle, and liver cells. Bone marrow stem cells can even migrate to these tissues via the circulatory system. (Bohlin).
Embryonic research is a process that requires killing an embryo. This brings about a serious question, is this ethical? And to what extent may we consider embryonic stem cell research ethical? What beings should we be able to classify as “persons?” Grayling likes to use the metaphor of humans to a fish. He claims that of the billions of eggs laid by fish, only about 0.5 percent hatch. Humans are not much less lavish. Every year hundreds of billions of spermatozoa die before reaching an ovum, and billions of ova are expelled unfertilized in menstrual cycles. An estimated quarter of all pregnancies spontaneously terminate before the sixth week; and overall, about one in five pregnancies spontaneously terminate before 20 weeks. We can obviously see his opinion on embryonic stem cell research; it’s not unethical. But just because some pregnancies “don’t work out,” doesn’t mean we have the right to say embryonic research is ethical and in moral standing. In fact, I believe it’s even more dishonorable. If pregnancies are so rare, then why is it okay to use the “left over” stem cells for research that was used in in-vitro fertilization for a couple? What if the woman needs her eggs later on when her pregnancy doesn’t work out? On the contrary, if the woman consents to the usage of her spare embryos, can research simply rely on these few eggs to do their research? This could start the pattern of a rather “slippery slope.” If we rely on the spare embryos and use federal funding on this, ultimately, women could be more likely to use in-vitro. For those who are pro-embryonic research, this could be great news. However, this could even lead to fewer children being adopted. This slope could ultimately lead to disaster. Moreover, many people are firm believers that human personhood starts shortly after conception. For many, human life is considered sacred and life, they believe, it truly begins when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell.
There is ultimately no controversy over adult stem cell research. This is because the stem cells can be retrieved from the individual who is actually receiving the therapy and also because it is not destroying an embryo. While embryonic stem cells might be rejected by the immune system, adult stem cells carry an increased potential of not causing any immune complications. (Bohlin). This highlights the advantages of previously unknown adult stem cells and their unexpected ability to produce numerous types of cells. Furthermore, because adult stem cells could be harvested from the individual needing the therapy and reinserted back into that very same individual, all rejection problems to the treatment are virtually eliminated. Adult stem cells offer a unique alternative to embryonic research because they don’t require a donor.
Although there are some doubts about adult stem cell research against embryonic, it has worked before and will continue to work to cure diseases. Some scientists believe that embryonic cells have the potential for universal applications. However, adult stem cells may also be easier to control since they already possess the ability to produce the needed cells simply by being placed in the vicinity of the damaged tissue. (Bohlin). On the contrary, many scientists don’t find it necessary to continue fighting for funds for adult stem cell research, because embryonic stem cell research has worked and continues to work. Not much more research is necessary. A patient and famous actor such as Christopher Reeves, fought an enormous fight for research on embryonic stem cell research, and his legacy is still fighting today. The Washington Post revealed to the world on June 1, 1995 that Reeves, best known for his role as Superman, “was paralyzed and could not breathe without the help of a respirator after breaking his neck in a riding accident in Culpeper, Va.”(Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research). Reeves believed that embryonic stem cells should and could be able to cure his paralysis. Unfortunately, he suffered a quick death from an unfortunate illness he obtained from bedsores. His wife set up a famous website now known as the Christopher and Dana Reeve foundation which states that “embryonic stem cells have the capacity to become any cell in the body without being able to develop into a complete human being; they are immortal and seem to be able to divide without limitation; and they can be genetically manipulated with great ease, which gives them enormous therapeutic utility.” (Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research). Which highlights the Reeve’s family believed truly there was no controversy over this study simply because the study can stop the cell from developing into an actual human being. And furthermore his belief is backed up by his foundation, which recognizes that responsible stem cell research involves the careful orchestration of scientific and ethical issues and it believes that the 2007 Amended National Academies of Science 2005 Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research strike a proper balance. However, in 1995 embryonic stem cell research was more prone to cure these diseases. Nevertheless now, with new research, if Reeves were still alive, he may have wanted to push for more funding of adult stem cells, which will soon be able to cure diseases and possibly the one he had.
More federal funding is entirely necessary for adult stem cell research. There are future perspectives on adult stem cell research to treat low blood supply, baldness, missing teeth, deafness, blindness and vision improvement, and even bone regenerations. (Avasthi). It also is used to treat diseases such as Diabetes, and Parkinson’s. Funding should continue because stem cells can also be used as model systems to understand basic biological processes and disease states and tools in drug discovery, allowing researchers to pin-point specific possible side effects before clinical trials. These trials will help researchers understand cell differentiation (McCormick and Scott) thus giving us more promising results. Furthermore, more funding is necessary in the United States because a possible “brain drain” could happen – when people of high technical knowledge move out of their country normally due to conflict, or lack of opportunity. Consequently, brilliant scientists could potentially move to China because of their immense studies and endless opportunities regarding adult stem cell research. For example, America sparked a lucky case when Albert Einstein moved to the United States due to conflict in Germany and ultimately gave us electricity. As far as adult stem cell research goes, America would play the role of Germany (the country at loss) and China (the country at gain) would play the role of Albert Einstein. Thus emphasizing how important it is to keep up with research because there could be many potential losses like Germany had with Einstein. This is a necessary and valid issue arising due to the ethical and controversy of stem cell research. If more federal funding is given for adult stem cell research, scientists will hopefully remain in the United States and continue research on adult cells. On the contrary, this “brain drain” could consequently make all the embryonic stem cell research scientists emigrate, causing America to lose more scientists. This is why encouragement and money should be placed on the adult stem cell research, so more scientists can get involved and work with adult stem cells keeping America from losing scientists.
America’s current President, Barack Obama has recently lifted the restraints on embryonic research placed by President Bush. Obama states, ““I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations. As president, I will lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research.” (Cell News.) Bush previously placed constraints on Embryonic research but allowed federal funding for the current embryonic lines at the time. Although I don’t believe in embryonic research, Bush was headed in the right direction to ending the issue. Now, America has a lot of work to step forward by moving in the right direction. First, America needs to increase federal funding for adult stem cell research. Americans need to petition for the same rights that Bush had applied so more federal funding will go towards adult stem cell research. Also, with the current funding America has now, researchers need to consistently push for more federal funding. Soon, America will get funding and we will be the leading nation in scientific discoveries as well as curing diseases we never thought possible.
Works Cited
“Barack Obama on Stem Cell Research.” Weblog post. Cell News. 2 Sept. 2008. 16 Apr. 2009 <http://cellnews-blog.blogspot.com/2008/09/barack-obama-on-stem-cell- research.html>.
Bohlin, Dr. Ray. “The Controversy Over Stem Cell Research.” Stem Cell Research. 30 Mar. 2009 <http.//www.leaderu.com/science/stemcellresearch.html>.
“Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation.” Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation. Today’s Care. Tomorrow’s Cure. 2009. 2009 Reeve Foundation. 16 Apr. 2009 <http://www.christopherreeve.org/site/c.ddJFKRNoFiG/b.4048063/k.BDDB/Home.htm>.
Romano, Lois. “Riding Accident Paralyzes Actor Christopher Reeve.” Riding Accident Paralyzes Actor Christopher Reeve 1 June 1995: A01. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A99660-1995Jun1.html>
McCormick, Jennifer B., and Scott, Christopher. “The stem-cell century: a new epoch and fresh challenges. (Essay Review).” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 52.1 (2009). Expanded Academic ASAP. 10 March 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?contentSet=IAC- Documents&docType=IAC&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docI d=A194332272&userGroupName=txshracd2573&version=1.0&searchType= AdvancedSearchForm&source=gale>
Sachin Avasthi, R.N. Srivastava, Ajai Singh and Manoj Srivastava. “Stem cell: past, present and future—a review article. (Clinical Knowledge).” Internet Journal of Medical Update. Jan.2008. Expanded Academics ASAP. 5 March 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC- Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C %29%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C6%29adult+%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D %28ke%2CNone%2C18%29stem+cell+research%24&sgHitCountType=Non e&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&tabID =T00 &prodId=EAIM&searchId=R1¤tPosition=15&userGroupName=txshra cd2573&docId=A187844323&docType=IAC>
Beckylyus's Blog 
Leave a comment