[StemCellInformation] # 411 Friday, January 25, 2007 - WHERE IS THE BODY?
Objections and Answers on St
# 411 Friday, January 25, 2007 - WHERE IS THE BODY? Objections and Answers
on Stem Cell Research
When I work with Americans for Cures Foundation, which I do about 10 hours a
week, I write as a member of a team. Documents produced there reflect the
strengths of individuals like Amy Daly, Constance McKee, Keith Proctor,
Jacqueline Hantgan, David Bluestone, and Sara Jakka. Sometimes I will do a
rough draft to try and get a framework going, and someone else will edit. Or
I might do the same for them. Each of us has a different way to answer some
of the attacks or objections the opposition may raise.
Amy Daly's approach, for example, is the high road.
If she were asked to respond to a nonsensical attack like, "Embryonic stem
cell research kills people!," she would probably say something dignified and
gentle, like:
"The only cells that are used for this research are cells that are excess
and will be thrown into the trash. Using these cells for research instead of
discarding them will allow us to find treatments and cures that will save
life. Compare this to organ donation: In this case, the person who is
donating the organs can not possibly live. So before life support is
removed, the organs are taken to save lives. With embryonic stem cell
research, these blastocysts can not possibly live (as they will be thrown
away), and so before they are thrown away, the cells are taken to save
lives."
Good stuff. Gentle, non-confrontational.
But when I write for this column, I work with Karen Miner, whose idea of a
calming influence is the advice given to President Harry Truman:, "Give `em
Hell, Harry"-
to which Mr. T. replied, "I just give them the truth, and to them it feels
like Hell!"
An honest question, concern, or polite objection deserves complete respect.
Example:
Concern: "A woman who donates eggs for research undergoes invasive surgery,
and receives hormone injections: this may put her health at risk."
Answer: this is a legitimate concern, which is why California asked the NIH
to organize a two-day conference on the subject of egg donation health and
safety issues, before even the first grants went out for new research.
Wherever there is risk, (as in almost every medical procedure, which is why
we sign release forms at the hospital) it should be mitigated. Donating eggs
for research, however, involves the exact same procedures that have been
used at In Vitro Fertility clinics, world-wide, for more than a decade.
Roughly one million women have had the procedure, and the vast majority
experienced no problems.
But does a propagandistic assault deserve the same courtesy as an
intelligent concern?
The following contains personal answers to some of both kinds of question.

Attack:  "Embryonic stem cell research kills people!"
Answer: If the research is murder, where is the body? In a court of law,
before a charge of murder can be made, evidence in the form of an actual
corpse must be produced. If anyone wishes to accuse our scientists, let them
either bring out a body, or quit making these ridiculous charges. The simple
truth, of course, is that we are talking about microscopic cells, not
people.
Attack: "Even if called by another name, cloning is cloning; there is no
difference between human reproductive cloning, and the so-called therapeutic
cloning: all forms of cloning should be banned."
Answer: Human reproductive cloning (to make a child) endangers both mother
and infant and should be banned, as it is in California. But to compare that
to therapeutic cloning (to make stem cells) is like saying a lightning bolt
and a light bulb are the same, since both involve electricity.  Consider: if
all forms of cloning were illegal, insulin for diabetics could not have been
developed; crime scene police would have their workload increased, because
cloning is used to produce dNA evidence; gardeners might be arrested, as the
greenhouse technique of "cutting a slip" is a form of cloning: cutting a
piece off a plant to grow it somewhere else. There are also food
applications to consider: like cloning cows which produce the most
milk-should we deny starving people access to milk by a blanket rejection of
all forms of cloning?
Attack: "Whether frozen in liquid nitrogen, or implanted in the womb, a
blastocyst is a child, and must be treated as the equal to any human.
Location makes no difference."
Answer: As it is biologically impossible for an unimplanted blastocyst to
become a child, location makes a huge difference. Frozen in liquid nitrogen,
a blastocyst is tissue cells.  Similarly, a tiny droplet of sperm contains
many thousands of spermatozoa, any one of which might help create a human
being if it linked up with an egg and implanted in the womb. Without
implantation in the uterine wall, a blastocyst cannot become a child. This
is just common sense: no woman, no womb-- no Mom, no baby.
Attack: "Scientists talk about more than 400,000 blastocysts left over from
In Vitro Fertility procedures, and say that some of these could be used to
make stem cell lines. Yet only a tiny proportion of those were designated
for research. It is therefore impossible for the research can continue,
since the donors of embryos are against it."
Answer: A recent survey showed that more than 2/3 In Vitro Fertility
participants were willing to donate leftover blastocysts to science, after
being told of the possibility. Consider the process.  A woman donates
usually about twenty eggs for the IVF procedure. These are mixed with sperm.
The strongest one or two blastocysts are then implanted in the woman's womb,
to help the childless couple make a family. But what happens to the other
eggs and/or blastocysts? They may be frozen for another try later, stored
forever for a monthly fee, donated to other couples (most people prefer to
make their own), or be thrown away. Those options should always remain open.
But if a couple decides to donate the unused materials to research for cure,
that is also worthwhile.
Attack: "Religion and science agree that life begins at conception, the
joining of sperm and egg, and embryonic stem cell research is therefore
going against religion."
Answer: Religions disagree on when life begins. The Catholic Saint Thomas
Aquinas felt it happened at the "quickening", when the infant first stirs
inside the mother. Others feel it begins when the child can function outside
the womb. The Judaic faith holds that life does not begin until the 40th day
after implantation. Muslims feel similarly. Presbyterians support the
research; Catholic leaders do not. Even inside a church, disagreements are
common. One poll showed 72% of Catholics in support of embryonic stem cell
research. As for scientists, most go along with the most common dictionary
definition, which includes implantation. Should any one religion be allowed
to determine medical science policy, and nobody else's opinion matters?
Attack: "The new skin cell reprogramming method (induced Pluripotentiary
Stem cells, or iPS) is better than human embryonic stem cell research, so
let's stop funding that, and put all our money on iPS."
Answer: The new form of stem cell derivation may perhaps be wonderful. But
it is at present considered too dangerous for therapies (cancer risk) and
may turn out to be less helpful than we hope. Even if it turns out to be a
valuable new tool, it would be foolish to throw away the entire toolbox. Our
best hopes for cure can be found in full stem cell research: adult,
embryonic, nuclear transfer, as well the new iPS-but none at the exclusion
of the others.
Attack: "Adult stem cells have brought treatments for 72 diseases, including
spinal cord injury and Parkinson's. Therefore, there is no need for
embryonic."
Answer: Where should paralyzed patients go to obtain these wonderful
treatments? If good treatments are truly available, hundreds of thousands of
suffering people would love to have them. Reality is otherwise: neither
spinal cord injury nor Parkinson's have been successfully treated: these
conditions have as yet no cure. Adult stem cell therapies are useful, and
have helped with blood disease and cancer. With a research head start of
more than 40 years, and massively preferential funding from the federal
government, adult stem cell research has provided approximately nine
FDA-approved treatments. But that is just the tip of the iceberg; chronic
disease and disability are ravaging our country, and the world.
Objection: "My religion opposes embryonic stem cell research, so I must do
the same."
Answer: Throughout history, religions have often blocked or obstructed
medical breakthroughs. Dissection, the very basis of anatomy and medical
research, was a death-penalty crime when religious forces ruled Europe. (If
Michelangelo had been caught and executed for dissecting dead bodies, he
could not have designed the Vatican, nor painted the Sistine Chapel.) The
DNA research which gave us artificial insulin for diabetics was opposed, as
were anesthetics for operating rooms, vaccines for polio and tuberculosis;
even x-rays were argued against on the grounds they might be used to see
through women's clothing! A person's faith may determine his or her decision
on accepting medication (some refuse blood transfusions, for example) but
should never be allowed to forbid medical benefits to others.
Don Reed
www.stemcellbattles.com

Don C. Reed is co-chair of Californians for Cures, and writes for their web
blog, www.stemcellbattles.com. Reed was citizen-sponsor for California's
Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act of 1999, named after his
paralyzed son; he worked as a grassroots advocate for California's Senator
Deborah Ortiz's three stem cell regulatory laws, served as an executive
board member for Proposition 71, the California Stem Cells for Research and
Cures Act, and is director of policy outreach for Americans for Cures. The
retired schoolteacher is the author of five books and thirty magazine
articles, and has received the National Press Award.

Rayilyn Brown
Board Member AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson's Foundation
[log in to unmask]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn