 |
 |
Senator John McCain was instrumental in passing the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act. Although I do not have Parkinson's myself I believe we, as a community, owe him a debt of gratitude for his advocacy on our behalf in Congress regardless of his stance regarding the Federal funding of stem cell research. One of the sources of stem cells has been fertilized eggs that have been stored, sometimes for years, awaiting implantation to initiate pregnancy in an otherwise unfertile woman. Many of these fertilized eggs will never be used for their intended purpose. Some scientists have chosen to grow them so to a point at which they can divide into stem cells appropriate for research. By current standards, Federally funded researchers can use these stem cells if they obtained them without growing them from fertilized eggs themselves. A fine line. I can see the merits of an argument which states that the deliberate manipulation a living cell which has the potential to grow into a fully formed human being, without the consent of either "parent" or donor, is a dangerous ethical precedent. While aborting a fetus may or may not be the perogative of a woman wishing to terminate an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy, the act of "bringing to life" a human being only to terminate its development for scientific or medical ends is an action that could be unacceptable by even the legal standards established for fetal tissue research. In the case of abortion a woman chooses to terminate her own pregnancy. In the case of growing a fertilized egg the decision to "continue" the development of a living being is made by a scientist. Are we prepared to grant scientists the right to manipulate human life, as primitive as it may be, for the greater good of society? Who and what rules determine how far a scientist or doctor can proceed in the development of human life? With a bit of luck this point may soon be moot. Apparently, scientists have been able to immortalize stem cells at certain specific stages of development. Once these cell lines are immortalized (made to continue to divide into the same types of cells without progressing to the next stage of development) there is no need to go back to a fertilized egg to grow new stem cells. Scientists researching Parkinson's are very interested in working with immortalized neuronal stem cells in order to capture the developmental stage in which undifferentiated cells divide into dopamine neurons. They can then follow the physiological progression of these cells as they divide and grow. The key to curing PD may be in finding out what makes dopamine neurons different from other neurons. By studying these stages carefully scientists will be able to determine the action of specific proteins in the immediate environment of the cell and the action of specific genes responsible for the difference in dopamine neurons. A single recognized step in metabolism or a single protein may be all that is needed to discover an intervention that will stop the cascade of dying cells in Parkinson's. Should we abandon debate on these issues because they are controversial and emotionally charged. I don't think so. You don't have to have Parkinson's to be concerned about the future course of humankind's biological development . Everyone has an ethical stake in how much we are willing to manipulate human life to fit our needs. The precedents we set now will have a profound effect on future generations. I think I would be a lot more concerned if people did not have strong opinions about stem cell research.