Presidential elections have always been characterized by a few
key issues ““ whether it is tax reform or Medicare. And this
year, the controversy about stem cell research has entered into the
election debate. The attention has sparked new interest in
scientific advances and has many questioning the relationship
between science and ethics. Religious ideologies, moral principles,
political agendas and scientific credibility are all on the line
and the result is heated debate and a lot of confusion. “The
way that the stem cell research issue is being framed in the media
is leading to polarization along the lines of for or against this
type of research. In fact, people who really understand what stem
cell research is all about are not opposed to it. Most favor adult
stem cell research. The key is recognizing that human embryonic
stem cell research has been hyped up,” said Dr. Amalia Issa,
a neuroscientist working at the UCLA School of Public Health. With
Ron Reagan, the son of the former president, criticizing President
Bush’s stem cell research policy at the Democratic National
Convention and with First Lady Laura Bush joining the debate, stem
cell research may just become the social issue of this presidential
election. But, when it comes to debating science the answers
don’t come easily and neither side may be right.
The root of controversy Despite all the rumors,
slogans, and politicking floating around in the headlines, Bush has
not fully banned stem cell research and Kerry’s camp is
correct when they say more research needs to be undertaken, UCLA
researchers and bioethicists say. The problem continues,
researchers immersed in this tense debate say, because of the
public’s lack of education regarding stem cells and the speed
with which discoveries are made. Some of the public is even unaware
that stem cells themselves are not controversial, but a specific
type known as embryonic stem cells are, said Dr. Harley Kornblum, a
UCLA associate professor in the department of molecular and medical
pharmacology. “(You) need to say that people who really
understand what stem cell research is all about are not really
opposed to it,” Issa said, adding that only the specific
embryonic stem cells are misunderstood. In addition, problems arise
when the media utilizes scientific evidence ““ whose findings
can sometimes be exaggerated ““ to make connections and
assumptions. “At the basic science level there is a lot of
activity … the problem lies in making the transition from bench
to bedside,” Issa said referring to the jump from research at
the lab bench to therapy at the bedside. The prospect of using stem
cells as the “magic bullet” to cure various illnesses
such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and
others have ignited mixed feelings of excitement and caution. Just
thinking that embryonic stem cells will allow doctors to cure such
diseases in the next couple of years is assuming too much and a
clear understanding of the science behind stem cells is needed.
Through the microscope lens Essentially, a stem
cell is a cell capable of dividing and replicating indefinitely and
giving rise to other more differentiated cells ““ such as
white blood cells ““ under certain conditions, according to a
2001 report on stem cells by the National Institutes of Health
entitled “Stem Cells: Scientific Progress and Future Research
Directions.” Stem cells are further divided into various
categories ““ most notably embryonic and adult ““ and it
is the embryonic stem cells that have been the source of contention
in the presidential election. Whereas an embryonic stem cell
proliferates in the embryo and is able to undergo an infinite
number of divisions without differentiating, an adult stem cell is
more mature, more specialized and possesses less potential. The
importance of this is that an embryonic stem cell has the potential
to morph into any cell type, while an adult stem is limited,
Kornblum said. “Theoretically, if a person is missing a type
of brain cell because of a degenerate disease you can culture the
(embryonic) stem cells, do things with them, and then put them back
in the body,” Kornblum added. The hope is that these stem
cells would be manipulated so that they could replicate and make up
for the missing cells, possibly curing the individual. On the other
hand, an adult stem cell found in human bone marrow could possibly
only give rise to blood cells, according to the NIH report. The
excitement of these stem cells lies in the fact that they can be
extracted, manipulated and cultured. With the right tools
scientists are able to direct the way stem cells differentiate. For
this reason, some scientists have historically been reliant on
these embryonic stem cells for their greater potential. But recent
studies show adult stem cells have greater plasticity ““ the
ability to give rise to other cell types. “It was not until
recently that anyone seriously considered the possibility that stem
cells in adult tissues could generate the specialized cell types of
another type of tissues from which they normally reside … studies
have shown that blood stem cells may be able to generate both
skeletal muscle and neurons,” according to the NIH study.
Issa adds: “There have been several advances with adult stem
cells … the bottom line is that adult stem cell research is
advancing faster and a little more effectively than human embryonic
stem cell research.” As more research is published about stem
cells, the public is beginning to learn about the many problems
plaguing embryonic stem cell research. Various studies with mice
have shown that their supposed advantage of unlimited growth and
potential for forming all tissues may be a hindrance when it comes
to transplants to repair damaged tissue. The transplants often
cause tumors,” Issa said. “The problem is unchecked
growth … so what we see from experimental evidence so far is that
embryonic stem cells are neither effective nor safe,” Issa
said, remarking that from the papers she has read embryonic stem
cells possess less potential for therapy. Nevertheless, certain
scientists seem unconvinced and argue that the pluripotent nature
of stem cells ““ their ability to give rise to a larger
variety of mature cell types ““ will provide great scientific
progress. “There is the need for groundwork. … We need more
open access to human embryonic stem cells,” Koblum said. The
debate goes back and forth and the public must make the decision
between the promise to great advances using embryonic stem cells
and the reality of adult stem cell progress, researchers say.
An ethical quandry Often science and morality
seem like two distinct and separate categories and bringing the two
together results in confusion. Yet what many neglect to remember is
that, historically, morality has always been a part of science,
Issa said. In which case questions arise as to how ethical concerns
should enter into the embryonic stem cell research controversy. The
primary concern with embryonic stem cells is that the cells have to
be harvested from human embryos and the result is destruction of
the embryo. “It (the destruction) treats a distinct human
being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more
than a disposable instrument to be used for someone else’s
benefit,” according to Scott Klusendorf’s “Fetal
Tissue and Embryo Stem Cell Research.” Klusendorf is the
director of bioethics at Stand to Reason, a Christian organization
which comments on scientific advances among other controversial
social topics. In addition to the religious beliefs which enter
into the stem cell research, there are other ethical concerns
independent of any religious belief. “Historically, one
founding principle of this nation as one can see from reading the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights, emphasized the dignity and
liberty of the individual. … So if as a society we decide that
human embryonic stem cell research should proceed, we’re
saying that we now believe that there’s a subset of human
beings who do not deserve to be accorded the dignity and respect we
accord to others,” Issa said.
Cells that divide For the many citizens getting
ready to vote in the November presidential election the candidates
stances on stem cell research may play a significant role in their
decisions. Recently, in a written response to the scientific
journal Nature, Bush promised to stand by his restrictions
regarding federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research.
Among the restrictions are a limit of federal funding for human
cell-lines taken from embryos before Aug. 9, 2001. Meanwhile, Kerry
told the journal that he would lift Bush’s
“ideologically driven restrictions” on human embryonic
stem cell research and at the same time assure stringent ethical
oversight. By election day, millions of Americans will analyze the
candidates’ positions, the credibility of the science and
decide for themselves how and if they want ethics to enter into the
stem cell research controversy.