 |
 |
I just sent this to the editor of the local newspaper in response to another article that was written. Bob Martone The Stem Cell Debate Stem cells can be derived from a number of sources. Many parts of the human body are pretty good suppliers of stem cells. These include bone marrow, skin, brain, umbilical cords, unfertilized eggs, blastocysts, embryos and more. As science continues to delve into our very being, we have discovered DNA, stem cells, the human genome (all the genes that make us human) and much more. As we pursue life saving, life supporting, and life changing medical advances (cures), we learn more and more about our makeup and the things that we can do to manage it better. Organ transplants were once thought of as mindless abuse of the human body and maybe even the soul. Today most of us understand and accept the valuable contribution this avenue of medical advancement has provided to millions of needy people. Fetal Tissue The fetal tissue debate crosses a threshold for some that borders on the unethical. That is, if we take a fetus for the purpose of using the tissue to save another life isn't that murder. On the other hand, similar to the organ transplant issue, if the life of the fetus is already taken, should the tissue be available for research, or transplantation, just like any other human tissue. I think properly regulated in a manner similar to organ transplant regulation, these issues can be overcome. The Stem Cell Debate The stem cell debate takes us into another area that pushes us to issues that are almost incomprehensible and therefore create fear because there are so many unknowns. Human Cloning For most of us the thought of cloning another human poses an ethical barrier that is awfully hard to get over. This seems to be true around the world regardless of your religious or political beliefs. When society reaches that conclusion, it certainly seems the brakes should be put on at least till we understand all the objections. Then some form of regulatory authority should be put in place. Therapeutic Cloning of Cells for Medical Advancement This is a little more complicated because the source of the cells seems to make a difference. Cells from umbilical cords, bone marrow, or brain cells taken and cloned to produce insulin for diabetes or dopamine for Parkinson's, seems to get a thumbs up in most circles. Embryonic Stem Cells Cells taken from embryo's left over at invitro fertilization clinics, however, seems to generate a larger divide. Some believe that life begins at conception whether in the womb of not they are a human life. Others believe that these microscopic cells while capable of becoming a life are still just a mass of cells, a blastocyst, invisible to the human eye with the potential to become one life, multiple lives (multiple births) or cells that can become a variety of things that might include insulin production and dopamine production. There are two issues here worth expanding upon. The argument for their use in stem cell research might include recognition that the cells are being destroyed today, by the couple, after the couple fulfills their life dream of having children through implantation. Why not treat these cells destined for destruction like any other organ donation. Second until successful implantation in a womb, and days/weeks of development, there is no brain or nervous system present. Many of us now accept the sign of end of life as no brain activity. Since these cells have no brain should they be afforded life status when as a society we have already said absence of brain activity constitutes death. If you believe a human life begins at conception, then your pro-life choice might lead you to believe embryonic stem cell research is wrong because it takes a life. If you believe the beginning of life occurs at some point further down the cell development cycle, your pro-life choice might be to transfer the cells and use them to save a human life. Why all the fuss? At this time, there is reason to suspect that the cells obtained from a blastocyst (pre-embryo) possess characteristics that support wider opportunities for researchers because of there pluropotency (ability to be altered). Adult or more senior cells do not seem to carry those same characteristics. Since this debate as yet does not have an answer many scientists believe research on all stem cells should be allowed to continue. I believe they are right. Bob Bob Martone [log in to unmask] http://www.shawus.com/bmartone ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn