Stem cell research will continue to be debated in scientific circles and in the halls of Congress but unfortunately, political funding and research decisions might not line up with sound science.
More than a decade after embryonic stem cells were first isolated, a top priority for some pro-embryonic stem cell scientists is an increase in taxpayer funding for this life-destroying research. But each year more of the scientific discussion focuses on the ever-developing alternatives to this research.
Based on a number of recent groundbreaking studies using non-embryonic sources, we can only hope this ethical research to take more of center stage.
In many ways, those in favor of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) have painted themselves into a corner. In an effort to gain widespread support for ESCR, they have made some high level promises to the American people. The story line went like this:
- "We can treat disease if we destroy young human embryos for research."
- "Patients are suffering from horrible diseases and these balls of cells will be destroyed anyway, let's use them to cure people."
- "We need to pursue the best research that has the quickest potential to treat disease, which requires ESCR."
But, so far, embryonic stem cells have failed to fulfill any of these promises.
Why Not Embryonic Stem Cell Research?
The public promotion of ESCR is by no means at a stand-still. ESCR is the subject of frequent and overly-hyped press releases that usually consist of exclamations about great "breakthroughs." What these releases fail to mention is that at least one of three limitations calls into question virtually all of these ESCR "successes:" 1) scientists are experimenting in animals (never humans because it's too risky) 2) immune rejection problems or cancer-causing tendencies are always an issue, and 3) research normally entails making embryonic stem cells behave like adult stem cells (rather ironic if you think about the strides being made with adult stem cells).
Proponents of ESCR continue to run into dead ends with these cells. New animal studies identify the same significant hurdles of previous research. As long as embryonic stem cells are rejected by patients and replicate wildly, causing cancer, there is little potential for these cells to treat disease.
In addition to the practical problems that continue to plague ESCR, obvious moral problems exist. Embryonic stem cells are harvested from a young human embryo and as a result, that embryo is destroyed. And this process – or anything that destroys, harms, or puts human life at risk – is contrary to the sacredness and value of human life.
When we consider how God designed the human body to function, it should come as no surprise that scientists continue to encounter problems with embryonic stem cells. A human life at the embryonic stage of development is on a fast-track to becoming a fully formed human being. In order to develop all the cells, tissues and organs necessary for the human body to function, embryonic stem cells divide and specialize rapidly. So it makes sense that these cells, when taken out of God's natural order, would replicate too quickly and form tumors. In contrast, cells in a fully formed body are replenished and rejuvenated during the natural wear and tear of life – by adult stem cells. So, it's no surprise that the adult stem cells God designed to heal our bodies are the most successful in stem cell treatments and therapies. These stem cells also pose no ethical concerns, making them ideal for these purposes.
Adult Stem Cell Successes
Fortunately, not all scientists have jumped on the ESCR bandwagon. Some scientists continue to move forward with morally acceptable stem cell research. These cells – often referred to as adult stem cells – have been successfully treating patients for more than a decade. In fact, more than 70 diseases and conditions are being treated with these cells. Even the federal government recognizes the importance of research with these cells – more than 2100 clinical trials with adult stem cells are being funded by the National Institutes of Health, with more added every day.
The Pentagon also understands the unique therapeutic potential of ethical stem cells. They are investing a quarter-billion dollars into adult stem cell research to help service members and war veterans injured on the battlefield.
Col. Bob Vandre of the Army's Medical Research and Material Command launched this five-year initiative that will use patients' stem cells to stop scarring, rebuild tendons and grow new ones. He believes that "regenerative medicine is going to change the world." He understands that it will be the means for "increasing the quality of lives, and [become] a huge technology that'll completely change the way we do medicine throughout the country."
There is a clear reason that this multi-million dollar initiative focuses on adult stem cells: Unlike embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells have a proven track record, with a steady stream of new examples almost every week. Here are a few recent success stories:
- Blindness – in London, patients who lost their eyesight from chemical accidents or genetic disease have reported significant improvement in their eyesight.
- Back and spinal injuries – In Colorado, a spinal surgeon performed the diskectomy (to remove a herniated or bulging disk) surgery with adult stem cells to help heal the lower back. This means that patients may be able to get long-term relief from back pain and minimize their need for further surgeries.
- Transplant patients – In Boston, transplant patients have avoided the use of long-term immune suppressing drugs. These drugs have serious side affects but are necessary to keep the patient's body from rejecting the new organ. A new treatment injected the patients with bone marrow stem cells from the organ donor. The stem cells from the donor trick the recipient's immune system into thinking the donated organ is part of the patient's natural self. Four of five kidney recipients were still off immune-suppressing medicines up to five years later.
- Regenerating kidneys – Dr Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University used amniotic fluid stem cells to regenerate human livers and other tissues.
- Lung disease (pulmonary hypertension) – In Canada, two patients were treated with genetically modified (enhanced) versions of their own stem cells.
- Spinal cord injuries – In Portugal, Dr Carlos Lima is treating patients with spinal cord injury by using the patients' own stem cells from their nasal cavity.
- Cancers – A number of cancers, from leukemia to breast cancer, are being successfully treated using adult stem cell.
- Blood disorders/anemia – patients with rare blood conditions and genetic disorders are finding relief, and sometimes being cured, with use of adult stem cells.
The list continues to grow — evidence that adult stem cell research isn't theoretical; these are real therapies, helping real patients.
Looking Ahead
Not only are the traditional forms of adult stem cells continuing to help patients, scientists are discovering other helpful alternatives to destructive research. The newest research uses ordinary adult body cells and transforms them into the embryonic-like stem cell research without harming human life. To learn more about iPS cells and this research, please visit Looking Forward: Ethical Stem Cell Research.
So what should scientists, medical professionals and politicians consider when they debate this issue in the coming months?
Morally problematic, life destroying embryonic stem cell research is losing ground as a viable option for research and treating disease. In fact, some scientists have gone so far as to say ESCR is on its way to becoming obsolete. That's some intellectual honesty that is nice to report.
In stark contrast to the failures of ESCR, ethically and scientifically sound non-embryonic stem cell research is providing real therapies. And basic research with adult cells continues to show promise for even more ways to obtain new, ethical, and useful stem cells.
The reality is that while science is leading researchers down a more ethical path, none of this would have been possible if pro-life voices had not persevered in their call for ethical research. The morally acceptable research we see today is a testimony to those voices.
Contact: Dawn McBane
Source: CitizenLink
