 |
 |
This article caught my eye because if the "blueprint" description: Adult verses embryonic stem cell research: Pro Jon Guito July 19, 2006 was a bad day for science. That fateful Wednesday, surrounded by a throng of public relations-friendly babies, President Bush stood on his supposedly moral high ground and burst the membrane off a new bill passed by Senate that would have eased restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cells. Apparently, the man who had no problem sending thousands of young men and women into a deadly war zone does have a problem using discarded embryos for potentially life-altering science. Stem cells are able to mature into other cell types, from skin to nerve cells. In natural conditions, they rise up to replace damaged or dying cells in various organs, for instance the bottommost layer of skin. They can also divide indefinitely. While stem cells have been studied for decades, human embryonic stem cells were just discovered in 1998 and much is yet to be learned. But what we do know about them is tantalizing. Because stem cells can change into other cell types, we may one day unlock the ability to cure diseases such as Parkinson's. We may generate tissues for transplantation. We may cure cancer and increase both the quality and duration of life. Perhaps, many generations from now, we'll even find a way to stop the aging process. It sounds like the Holy Grail of science. There's just one drawback: the stem cells carrying the most promise - embryonic cells - are caught in a storm of political red tape. How come? Because study requires the destruction of an embryo. People against embryo cells' use cite this as immoral, viewing the embryo a living human. Here are the issues. First issue: public and political opinion. According to polls collected by http://pollingreport.com and conducted last summer and in 2005 by the likes of Gallup, USA Today and ABC, the majority of Americans - 68 percent - support expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. In terms of affiliation, both the majority of independents and Democrats support research - 60 percent -, and more Republicans favor embryonic stem cell research - 46 percent - than oppose it - 42 percent. In fact, the most recent bill was backed by staunch anti-abortion Republicans such as Sen. Bill Frist, and Rep. Diana DeGette, who was the bill's co-sponsor, according to The Washington Post. Sixty-three percent of Americans disapproved of Bush's veto, according to http://PollingReport.com. Second issue: adult stem cells. Opponents say they are where money should go. They'll say there is nothing unethical about them and they hold immense potential. They're right. We know much more about adult stem cells. We've used them for bone marrow transplants for decades. Adult stem cells can form into a wide array of mature cells. But embryonic cells potentially one-up adult stem cells so much that to ignore them would be to ignore the greatest opportunity in science. Embryonic cells can give rise to every type of cell in the body, save placental cells. Adult stem cells can only give rise to select cell groups. According to Rowan University biology professor Dr. Elizabeth Brooks, adult stem cells are also difficult to locate and not as effective. To maximize research benefits, we must study both types simultaneously. Third issue: research problems. With funding restrictions set in August 2001 to about 65 stem cell lines, problems have emerged. According to Brooks, scientists have trouble acquiring lines for research. Funding only a set amount of lines and not funding the creation of more is a disaster. It puts a high premium on existing lines with no room for error. It allows the outsourcing of scientists to other countries that are more relaxed in regulations and it allows countries such as the United Kingdom to surpass us in the field. Fourth issue: the definition of life. Some believe it's not until birth. Others say it begins at conception. Cell theory states that a cell is the most basic form of life. Any smaller and it's just a molecule. If this is true, then life does begin at conception. This sounds black and white, but it's not so simple. An embryo is a group of cells. It's life, yes, but it is merely a group of cells. It cannot think or feel. It is not differentiated into organs and bones. It is not technically a human being. Remember, nearly every species on Earth shares the same genetic code - the same blueprint for life. Only the DNA sequence and size differ between organisms. If a cell coding for life is the reason for not testing human embryos, then no embryos of other species should be tested. Of course, this is unrealistic. Therefore, the opposite argument - that destroying an embryo is not equivalent to destroying a living human - should be considered. There is also the principle of acceptable risk, which means in this context that research that benefits mankind outweighs potential risks or losses. "Collateral damage" is a term with which Bush is familiar. This is the same basic idea. The difference here is that war is ambiguous and positive effects are temporary. Science lasts forever. Is this an uphill challenge? We're climbing the Everest of discovery. Is there a chance of failure? Always. It's only a matter of time before science celebrates at the summit. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn