 |
 |
# 361 Friday, August 24, 2007 - WHY EMBRYONIC? Embryonic stem cell research. Mention those words to a religious fanatic, and they get all white-knuckled and start muttering about scientists like Frankenstein-"He meddled in things Man was meant to leave alone!" Say it in front of patient advocates like me, and I will probably say something enthusiastic about the current occupant of the White House. Love it or hate it, everybody has a reaction, everybody has an opinion. It is amazing, really, that a medical procedure could so grip the world's imagination. Why? Mario Puzo, author of The Godfather, was once asked a similar question, about what makes a best-selling novel. He answered in one word: "Universality," he said. We all know someone who suffers. Maybe it is we ourselves in endless pain, the grinding exhaustion of never feeling good, the sudden stabbing shoot of flame that wakes us up at night, so we toss and turn and wake our partner. Or maybe it is someone we love. Friends of mine, right now, are trying to get their son on a plane to the East Coast, for an operation. But his condition is so grave, he requires special electronic monitoring equipment to stay alive-and that equipment may interfere with the plane's guidance system. They are fighting for their child's life, through every means available. The operation has nothing to do with stem cell therapies, but if there was, I am sure they would try that as well. Maybe, there will be a cure from the research we all support-but when? That tantalizing, agonizing possibility, the wavering candle light of hope, lures us on. Who among us, being ill, would not wish for cure? Especially as we look back through history, and see where medical science has brought relief from suffering. But every step forward-every chance to ease pain and save lives-- has been opposed. One Congressman recently came out against what he calls "cloning", saying he has type one diabetes, but even so, he is against the research which might bring him cure. Interesting. I wonder if he is taking insulin, which was developed through the cloning of DNA? That research also was opposed by the same sort of folks who are against research today. If the body was a computer, and there was a glitch, would we not immediately re-boot? Sometimes just re-starting the computer will fix what was wrong. Embryonic stem cells offer us a similar possibility, to reboot body cells, and start again, going back to an earlier, healthier time. Does not each of us enjoy our own acquaintance with stem cells? Our bodies heal. Adult stem cells allow us to heal small cuts and minor injuries naturally, fixing them with our personal living repair kit. I like that idea very much, and am in favor of building on it. I do not think adult stem cells will ever be the equal to embryonic, but still I support research to find out. And embryonic. before we were born, every limb and organ we possess was shaped and developed and grown by embryonic stem cells-does anyone object to that? Ahh, but that is natural, the objection is raised-to do embryonic stem cell research is un-natural. Which is of course entirely correct. Almost everything we humans do is un-natural-a truly natural human would be naked and without fire, and never use tools at all. Might be better that way, who knows? But I am not going there. I like that little old lady, who said she was against airplanes-if Man was meant to fly, we would have been born with wings, she said- we should all stay home and watch TV, as God intended. The unknown is always frightening, like the dark, but does that mean we should not turn on the light? I know a scientist, a good and decent man, whose liver is failing. He does not drink, it is not that-but his liver is going bad. Why should we not try and grow him a new one? I visited a school for the deaf once, and watched a basketball game played in silence. This was a junior high school, and I was a teacher at the time. I had never heard such stillness in junior high school before. But silence was their world. They felt the vibrations of shoes on the wood, they saw the movements of the other's bodies-but they could not hear. Why should we not restore the tiny cells inside their ears which give them sound? Who has the right to say we must not grow new skin for a burn victim, or restore motion to the paralyzed, give hope to those with ALS and cancer-to end AIDS, to restore sight to the blind-and regenerate the economy at the same time? A few days ago, I had the good fortune to sit across a table from Bob Klein. The man who made Proposition 71 was eating his lunch, and simple courtesy would be to let him have a moment of peace and quiet, before the cell phone and schedule swept him away. But an opportunity like that does not happen every day. So I asked him: What would he do if he was President? He made a noise around his sandwich, something which sounded like: "Un-do." I waited, but he did not elaborate. I restrained my curiosity, until he swallowed, and then asked again: what would he do if he were President, what single positive act? He paused for a moment, and the table got quiet. "I would pass a bond measure," he said. I remembered the three billion dollar bond measure that made California the hope of the stem cell world. 'For three hundred billion dollars in biomedical research," he added, "To move the national economy forward, in a positive sustainable direction." Naturally, that was enough, and I let him enjoy the rest of his meal in peace? Well. What would he most want, if he could leave a mark on the world? (I was thinking about a school named after him, or a hospital, or a library.) He smiled, and said: "That my children would be happy." Don Reed www.stemcellbattles.com 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