The fight to cure diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s has long been an arduous one, but a new field of controversial research may soon change that.
Embryonic stem cell research - the extraction of stem cells from aborted embryos - is what many scientists say could be the new direction for the cure of debilitating diseases.
“Stem cell research has promise, but scientists must deliver this promise through a lot more hard work in order to ease the minds of its critics,” said Leonard Fleck, a professor of philosophy and medical ethics.
Stem cells are “blank” cells that have the potential to develop into any type of cell in the body, such as those of the nerve, heart or kidney. Scientists try to harvest the cells before they have differentiated, then coax them into becoming certain types of cells.
Opponents of the research also say there are more ethical and legally justifiable ways to cure diseases, saying there are other ways to obtain stem cells, such as from umbilical cords, spinal fluid and adult organs. There are existing laws that specifically protect human embryos from experimentation, such as congressional bans on federal funding in many states.
Embryonic stem cells are preferable to other stem cells because of their lack of development. The cells at this stage have not declared themselves and thus with programming, can develop into a specific chosen cell line. They have more capability to differentiate into various tissues and are thus more useful.
If cardiac cells are grown, for instance, they might be able to replace damaged heart tissue in someone who has had a heart attack. Nerve cells might be able to repair brain cells damaged by Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, or replace injured spinal cord cells in a paraplegic.
Scientists in Virginia are now able to create human embryos specifically for the purpose of extracting stem cells, raising even more questions about the ethics of the science.
Although supporters of the research think the field is promising, no cures have been developed from stem cell research.
That is where government funding for the research comes in.
Many scientists believe this growing field could grow even faster with federal funding, and president Bush’s recent decision to support limited embryonic stem cell research has created mixed reactions from all sides of the debate.
Bush decided to allow federal tax dollars to back research only on stem cells that have already been extracted from human embryos, and he supports research on the more than 60 “genetically diverse stem cell lines” he says already exist.
Bush’s recent decision will alienate him from most right-to-life conservatives who say embryonic stem cell research is wrong because it destroys human life, mixing it with the abortion debate. Supporters say the embryos were going to be destroyed anyway and not funding the research could be a huge setback.
Many scientists have questioned whether more than 60 embryonic stem cell lines actually exist while some liberals accuse the president of not going far enough by not supporting federal funding on human embryos at fertility clinics that otherwise would be discarded.
Some opponents of abortion, like the National Right to Life Committee, say they are delighted by the decision, while others, like the Catholic Church, accuse Bush of “crossing a moral line.”
James Trosko, an MSU researcher who does research on isolating human stem cells from consenting adults to cure diabetes, encourages federal funding of the research.
“Compared to the funding the military gets, anything we get would be peanuts,” he said.
Trosko, who said this research is not cloning, stands by the potential for stem cells to repair or replace damaged tissue.
Ije Okpala, a food science graduate student, wouldn’t personally condone the research.
“I personally wouldn’t participate in anything linked with abortion,” she said. “If the research could prove that it could work, I might reconsider, but nobody has seen anything happen yet.”
Accounting junior Eric Kim said an embryo is not technically alive and said the research holds a lot of promise - but he can see why some would say it’s unethical.
“It’s not the best thing to do,” Kim said.
But Fleck said he doesn’t see a problem with using embryonic stem cells.
“Because embryonic stem cells belong to a human embryo and have no personal status, I have no objection to its use,” he said.
Anti-abortion conservatives like U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, supports the research and Nancy Reagan would also like to see it funded as tribute to her husband, former President Ronald Reagan. They were influential in forming Bush’s decision.
Even if there was a breakthrough in the research, Trosko said he thinks those with conservative viewpoints would not change their minds.
“The problem with the controversial stem cell debate is philosophical,” Trosko said. “Every human decision has a factual and value component. Science teaches people to agree with the facts but unreasonable people choose to follow their beliefs and choose value. That is why there will never be an end to this debate.”
