Stem cell research is necessary, important

With the promising and exciting potential for cures and treatments for an enormous group of debilitating diseases and disorders - such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, stroke and various forms of faulty or damaged tissue - embryonic stem cell research could be considered a "God-send." But as of anything having to do with embryos - and God - there is a storm of controversy surrounding the issue. Though the controversy is not a polarizing issue - polls show the vast majority of Americans support ESCR - it has been portrayed as such in the media. It is primarily the extreme so-called "pro-life" camp and the religious right who have created this controversy. With the Bush administration's annoying habit of pandering to the religious right, ESCR has become a highly politicized issue. As a result there has been considerably little progress in ESCR compared to the uncontroversial adult stem cell research that is advancing. Opponents of ESCR have often pointed out the successes of ASCR as evidence to stop embryonic research. This rests on the assumption that ASCR is a suitable substitute. There are important differences between adult and embryonic stem cells that indicate ASCR alone is not enough. ESCR opponents are only encouraging ASCR to end, or at least impede, ESCR through legislative means. Earlier this month Anthony Atala, a tissue-engineering specialist at Wake Forest University, published a study finding that amniotic stem cells - stem cells extracted from the placenta and amniotic fluid in pregnant women - have an ability to differentiate and a life span comparable to that of embryonic stem cells. ESCR opponents are now arguing that amniotic research and ASCR are "more moral" options able to eliminate the need for ESCR. This is simply not the case, and Atala agrees. "Some may be interpreting my research as a substitute for the need to pursue other forms of regenerative medicine therapies, such as those involving embryonic stem cells. I disagree with that assertion," Atala said in a letter to sponsors of House legislation in favor of ESCR. Anti-ESCR advocates also misinterpreted and misused the work of Jeffrey Gimble, professor and researcher in the Stem Cell Biology Laboratory at Pennington Biomedical Research Center. Gimble works primarily with adult stem cells but said embryonic stem cells are fundamentally important for stem cell research. Gimble told The Daily Reveille he is excited about Atala's findings but said it is still in its early stages and should not be a substitute for ESCR. "It is dangerously shortsighted to suggest that since we've got something else that works, we shouldn't do any other research," Gimble said. "We don't know the limits of its capabilities. More research needs to be done." This research must include embryonic stem cells. According to Gimble, pursuing ESCR is necessary because it is a driving force behind the success of adult stem cell research. ESCR allows for a comprehensive, scientific understanding of stem cells that aids in discovering and developing practical medical applications. The issue at hand is not the usefulness of ESCR - it is inherently important for scientific research - but the ethical considerations about the destruction of embryos. According to Kevin Elliott, bioethicist and philosophy professor at the University of South Carolina and former member of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center's Stem Cell Group, "the biggest ethical question [regarding ESCR] is going to be the moral status of a human embryo." For ESCR to be immoral, an embryo must be established as a full human person - not an easy task. Concern aside, Elliott said, "Everyone can agree that it is at least a potential person, but it is not exactly clear whether one has to give full moral respect to a potential person." Elliott said it would be like considering an acorn the same as a whole oak tree. There are clear distinctions - such as sentience, consciousness and rationality - that separate a person from an embryo, and these distinctions matter. "It's not at all clear that [an embryo] is actually a person, and if you say it is a person at that point, well then you are losing all your criteria for what counts as a person. All you have is the potential to develop and the DNA code," Elliott said. But to regard an embryo as a person with full moral status creates serious complicated inconsistencies. For example, the existence of fertility clinics challenges this notion. If embryos are people, then we are allowing for people to be frozen indefinitely or eventually destroyed as a result of invitro fertilization, standard practices of fertility clinics. An estimated 50 percent of embryos fail to develop, but there is no outcry regarding the mass death resulting from spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. Consequently it is not at all clear, much less likely, that an embryo is actually a person. The issue of ESCR is sure to remain controversial for the time being, but the importance of this research is not in dispute. Bioethics supports this practice, and funding and expanding this research is endorsed by almost every major science and medical establishment including the American Medical Association and the National Institute of Health.

----- Contact Erik Browne at ebrowne@lsureveille.com