Stem cell research and the ethics of scientific advancement

Stem Cell Research: It Must Go Forward

Stem Cell Research - Ethically, Morally, and Socially Appropriate

THESIS & INTRODUCTION: I believe strongly that the ongoing research using stem cells is morally, ethically, and socially appropriate. Notwithstanding some legitimate (and many unfounded) concerns by those who fear that human life can be "cloned" or otherwise exploited, this research is vitally important in the search for cures for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other terrible diseases. Meanwhile, in several instances, the current executive branch of U.S. Government has coyly and skillfully manipulated some members of its conservative constituencies (Christians, Republicans, and others in the public and the media) into embracing a position that religion somehow trumps science. For example, "Do you believe in Jesus or Darwin?" This question is absurd, but it is in play as part of the Bush strategy to enfranchise Christian conservatives.

The strategy of dividing people by turning science into a morally questionable political agenda has been the George W. Bush (and Karl Rove, his chief political advisor) approach when it comes to: the Global Warming issue; the evolution vs. "intelligent design" / creationist controversy; and, unfortunately, stem cell research as well. I bring this into my argument because I believe it is unethical - and unconscionable - to promote a political agenda designed to get votes that in fact blocks research that could result in profoundly vital human health advances. I can't change politics in America. I can, though, take a strong position on stem cell research, and this paper provides the literature and logic to back up my assertions.

BODY of the PAPER - LITERATURE, ETHICS, SCIENCE

Meanwhile, the lofty objective of furthering medical and healthcare knowledge and practices through the utilization of stem cells certainly has offered great hope in recent years for the cure of deadly / dreaded diseases, the regeneration of tissues, for gene therapy, cell replacement, and more. "But" - and "but" is a key word in the ongoing, controversial stem cell picture - there are ethical, legal and moral issues shrouding stem cell research, plus, the all-important fact that "clinical application remains largely speculative" according to a recent article in Biologist (O'Donoghue, et al., 2004).

One reason clinical application of stem cell application is "speculative" is that, according to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (Brainard, 2004), the Bush Administration's executive decision in 2001 to "limit federal funds to studying only human embryonic stem cells existing at that time" slowed down research progress. Brainard points out that as time goes by and more exploration shows positive signs for stem cells, "...advances in the research are running up against the Bush Administration's restrictions."

As was mentioned in the Introduction, significant portion of George W. Bush supporters embrace the "pro-life" / "anti-abortion" movement, which views stem cell research negatively - it is not possible to discuss the ethics of stem cell research without at least mentioning the political realities.

The Roman Catholic Church, and indeed many conservative Christian church denominations, object to medical research being conducted on human embryos - whether or not the research could lead to a cure for the dreaded Alzheimer's Disease, or whether or not the embryo would be disposed of in fertility clinics anyway, if not used in research.

But moreover, this paper is obliged to examine where stem cell research is today, why there are serious ethical issues at hand, how many scientists are currently pursuing avenues of research, and what the future might bring in terms of diseases that could be cured - or at least brought into milder forms - as a result of using human stem cells.

Meanwhile, one cannot argue ethics and morality without first going into some depth about what is at stake with reference to this issue. Hence, notwithstanding the tentative nature of the line drawn between ethical issues and real time scientific exploration of what stem cells may be able to help science accomplish, O'Donoghue writes that the "remarkable properties" of cells and blood "render it now feasible to contemplate isolating living health stem cells from the body." When that is accomplished, the next step would be to expand them under the highly-controlled laboratory culture conditions, "combining them with biocompatible carrier molecules, and directing their proliferation with growth factors." Following those procedures, the real payoff of stem cell research would be realized by "transplanting them or their progeny into patients for clinical gain."

Generalizations about the origins of current stem cell research

The University of Wisconsin (UW) is an appropriate source of information about stem cells and stem cell research because UW scientist James a. Thompson published a paper in Science magazine in November, 1998, that shook the scientific world. He was the first researcher - working with his UW team in Madison - to identify the way in which stem cells can be "manufactured" in laboratory environments, and to also identify what these cells could be used for.

Thompson's published research showed that stem cells - "...ephemeral, blank slate cells that occur at the earliest stages of human development" - could, under proper conditions, "be isolated, cultured and grown in apparently limitless quantities."

There is little doubt among scientists and researchers that embryonic stem cells have enormous potential. Indeed, their uniqueness is amazing when understood by the lay person. For example, according to the UM Stem Cell Center, "...there are no other cells that can perform the same biological feats as embryonic stem cells. They can morph into any one of the 220 types of cells and tissues in the human body."

Even without fully understanding all the implications and details of this research and it's awe-inspiring possibilities, the lay person becomes optimistic about future healthcare solutions for disease by realizing that stem cells "...can proliferate endlessly in culture, and provide a vast supply of cells for research and, someday, therapy."

Someday, he says, "therapy" could result. Those are simple words, but they carry the power of hope for a better life for hundreds of thousands of citizens who are suffering. When I think of the pain that my grandmother went through for several years with Alzheimer's Disease, I realize that science should be respected, and advanced, in a moral and ethical way, whenever human suffering is on the line. When I remember the times she didn't know my name, didn't know where she was, couldn't remember any of her family members and walked away and got lost in our neighborhood, I rage at those who would block progress on a cure for Alzheimer's Disease. it's a person thing for many Americans who have seen the devastation of Alzheimer's, and it's an ethical issue as well.

When there is an opportunity to find a way to attack the causes of tragic diseases, and in the meantime no humans are harmed, no children are exploited, America is morally obliged to move forward with research. Philosophically, if the scientific community is blocked from conducting the vital research needed, that is a great injustice that transcends politics and moves into the dark shadows of social malevolence. It is borderline fascism when people in power prevent social and medical breakthroughs only to advance a narrow, partisan, selfish agenda.

Before a reader thinks that I am out of bounds by using "fascism" to describe some of the activities of the current occupant of the White House - whose chief advisor, Karl Rove, is among the most unethical political consultants to achieve such enormous executive power - here is the definition of "fascism" from the American Heritage Dictionary: "A philosophy or system of government that is market by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." Not to suggest that Bush is a "dictator," but he certainly feels comfortable dictating his own style in "the war on terror"; a) by ignoring existing federal law and wiretapping millions of citizens without a warrant; b) perusing personal bank accounts (without the authority) in search of terrorist connections; and tacitly approving a policy of torturing prisoners (against Geneva Convention statutes).

And perhaps most importantly of all, the UW researchers continue, stem cells "...provide our only window to the earliest stages of human development and, after differentiation, access to more specialized cells that could vastly improve our understanding of the onset of cell-based diseases, and perhaps ways to prevent them."

Among the diseases that may be able to be treated - and even cured - through stem cell research are Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, spinal cord injuries, burns, and more. How many people could be helped, even relieved of enormous suffering, through successful stem cell science is unknown, but certainly there are millions who cry out for help.

Medical researchers highly value stem cells because they can develop into many types of human tissue," according to an article in the Washington Post (Babbington, 2004). Stem cells "...hold promise for treating spinal injuries among several other afflictions," Babbington explains. And where the controversy enters into the picture is the fact that some stem cells can be obtained from "adult tissues, but more versatile cells come from human embryos," embryos which are frozen and left over at fertility clinics.

Many researchers currently working on this science use stem cells "from embryos at an early stage of development, about five days after fertilization," Brainard writes. At five days "the embryo numbers only about 200 cells," and all of them are "capable of specializing into all of the cells that make up the body," including such key parts as brain neurons and heart muscle, Brainard explains.)

And so, if using human embryos is so controversial, why not take stem cells from adults? The UW Stem Cell Center answers that question by pointing out that currently, there are indeed a series of approaches in experimental stages "...that utilize mature stem cells (such as blood-forming cells, neuron-forming cells and cartilage-forming cells)." The problem though is that "...because adult cells are already specialized, their potential to regenerate damaged tissue is very limited."

For example: the only thing skin cells will become is skin, and cartilage cells only become more cartilage. "Adults do not have stem cells in many vital organs," the UW explanation continues, "so when those tissues are damaged, scar tissue develops. Only embryonic stem cells, which have the capacity to become any kind of human tissue, have the potential to repair vital organs."

Another shortcoming of adult stem cells is that they do not proliferate in culture like embryonic stem cells do. In fact, "adult stem cells are difficult to grow in the lab and their potential to reproduce diminishes with age." Hence, useful, functioning amounts of adult stem cells may prove to be "difficult to obtain." very recent and positive research result on stem cell science

According to an article in the Washington Post (Weiss, 2004), scientists in Haifa, Israel (Izhak Kehat and Lior Gepstein), working in the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, have recently made some startling discoveries with reference to stem cells growing into heart muscles. In one of their experiments, the scientists grew masses of stem cells in lab dishes, isolating those stem cells that "were spontaneously developing into heart cells," which they could detect because the stem cells morphing into heart cells "were pulsing in unison, as heart cells are apt to do."

The Israeli researchers then placed a mass of about a million human stem cells (about the size of the head of a pin) into a lab dish with heart cells from rats. At first, the cells of the rat species and of the human species "beat at different rates," but within 24 hours of being in the same lab dish, "the combined masses of cells coordinated their pulsing into a single rhythm."

What does this prove or portend for the use of stem cells? Could stem-driven heart cells assist in setting the pace of a heart in a live animal? To take their experiment a notch further, the team of scientists "threaded a probe into the hearts of 13 pigs," making a tiny burn in the area that regulates the beating of the pig's heart. That burn caused a severe (and permanent) slowing of the pig's hearts, mimicking the rhythm disorder that cause result from a heart attack in a human. Then the scientists "injected about 100,000 of their human embryo-derived heart [stem] cells" into the slowed-down pig's hearts, and soon 11 of the 13 burn-damaged pig's hearts "returned to faster heart rates," according to Weiss's report.

What does this prove? it's just a "proof of principle," said Gepstein, though it's not as though people will be lining up for "biological pacemakers" any time soon.

CONCLUSION

In a phone interview with an Alzheimer Association staff person named "Elizabeth" (they don't give last names, she said) she was asked if her organization supports stem cell research. "I will read to you the position of our national Board of Directors, which made this official position statement in June, 2004," she said. "In keeping with its mission to eliminate Alzheimer's disease, the Alzheimer's Association opposes any restriction or limitation on human stem cell research, provided that appropriate scientific review, and ethical and oversight guidelines are in place.'"