Some of the more passionate discussions on this blog have been about the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research and the funding of that research by the state and federal governments. So the recent developments that might obviate the use of embryonic stem cells is worthy of another go around.
But what I found equally intriguing, are the moral qualms of the pioneer in embryonic stem cell research, James Thomson, a U of I grad and professor at the University of Wisconsin. The Corner has a clip from his comments that are available in full at the NY Times if you're willing to sign up for free. The statement that stands out most is this.
“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough,” he said.
This sort of admission is largely missing from the propenents of embryonic stem cell research. Instead, those who oppose the research are largely portrayed as scientific neanderthals. As Katherine Jean Lopez says, it would have been nice to have had Prof. Thomson saying this during the middle of this contentious debate. But I'll take this late admission on his part that the morality and ethics behind this issue are not easily brushed aside as some would do.
I saw a headline a couple of days ago about some kind of stem cell research breakthrough. I didn't read the entire article, but the first paragraph said it came from a "non embryo-destroying" method (adult stem cells, I presume?).
I've never heard any advocate of embryonic stem cell research refute the anti-embryonic stem cell people's claims that embronic stem cell research has yet to yield any useful results.
I'm not a doctor or medical researcher, but it seems intuitive to me that adult stem cells would be more useful for therapeutic purposes than embronic stem cells since the adult stem cells have already been "programmed" to be a specific type of tissue, whereas embronic stem cells still need to be "told" what to become.
First, this groundbreaking "non-embryo destroying" research wouldn't have been possible without previous research on embryonic stem cells. It also may be unlikely that this technique as it stands now could ever lead to a therapeutic application. The Japanese method, for example, may generate tumors as it involves inserting a "cancer gene" into the cell's DNA.
Second, whenever I hear the anti-embryonic stem cell people claiming that embryonic stem cells have yielded no useful results, they never seem to acknowledge the fact that adult stem cell research has been going on for about three times as long as embryonic stem cell research, which only began around 1998.
Third, the whole point to using embryonic stem cells is that they can become any kind of cell. Adult stem cells don't have that kind of flexibility and can only become certain types of cell.
I've never heard any advocate of embryonic stem cell research refute the anti-embryonic stem cell people's claims that embronic stem cell research has yet to yield any useful results.
Arguments that the some type of research has not produced any useful results hold little weight. Practical penefits of research sometimes may not materialize for decades. For example, many of the advances in computer hardware and software in the past two decades have underpinnings in basic mathematical research performed 40 or fifty years earlier. Similar cases exist as well in the biological and medical sciences.
"I'm not a doctor or medical researcher, but it seems intuitive to me that adult stem cells ..."
I pray society never bases research decisions on the intuition of lay persons. Many major scientific advances are made by those who transcend intuition.
Michael Fuerst
Michael,
Correct...
"....many of the advances in computer hardware and software in the past two decades have underpinnings in basic mathematical research performed 40 or fifty years earlier"
and this guy ought to know....
"Never has mankind benefited from government spending more than that which sent us to the Moon."
Neil Armstrong
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
During my campaign, I had the honor and pleasure to meet and discuss this issue with many individuals whom had suffered unfortunate accidents or were inflicted with terrible and terminal diseases. For obvious reasons, they researched the types and possible cures available from stem cell research and were certainly able to discern between those with hope and those that were simply political hogwash. To a person, stem cell research and some of the early results offered hope to them.
During my campaign and later on, I had a voter/client who had suffered an accident that injured his spinal cord. He has since devoted his educational career to fields involving stem cells and their possible (or not) benefits to individuals suffering similar injuries. Speaking with him, even with my education is very enlightening and rewarding, and far above my capabilities to understand everything about this medical research. So I asked him directly:
"If money was no object and unlimited funds would be available for proper research and development of actual medical treatments and cures involving stem cells, how long would it be before you could again walk and return to a normal life?"
His response was absolutely stunning....
"Maybe 5-10 years, at the most."
That established two things in my mind, this is very promising research and only money is limiting the medical society from allowing people who have suffered spinal injuries from again returning to a normal life.
But to possibly expose a terrible moral issue, I followed with this question:
"How many unborn infants or living humans would be killed to obtain the stem cells necessary for this research?"
His response;
"None, because the most promising cells were cells obtained from other sources and some pharmaceutical companies hold legal rights to those kind of cells and are holding them for financial gain."
God I love money.
Our medical research has provided cures and operations that have benefited many, extending their lives so they may possibly be more productive to society. I have benefited, because without those operations, I would have perished at 49 with a diseased gall bladder. Many of us would not be here today, if it were not for the small scar on our shoulders. So we all have benefited from the medical advances.
Mankind has for years destroyed life, with the belief that the destruction, would justified and beneficial to mankind. Mice, Rats, Rabbits, Monkeys, Ferrets, etc. have been destroyed with mankind being the justification. But only now, have the test animals also included the possibility of the cells of humans or human unborn. So again we must ask ourselves the question:
"Should we destroy life, to save lives?"
Nothing has changed and the answer is still a resounding.....NO!!!!
But if such cells can be obtained from our individual selves or from those so unfortunate as to not have completed the journey into life because of natural reasons, then why not use those cells to provide hope to those such as my above mentioned acquaintance? I completely agree with Mr. Thomson, that moral issues are certainly there and to ignore those issues would be unprofessional at best.
But if such non invasive research can continue to provide those who are suffering with hope, then it is our duty as fellow men, to pursue the provision of that hope.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Nancy Reagan's gonna be pissed!;)
So you're against heart transplants and organ donation?
xian,
LOL.... I'll bet, you think she reads pundit?
Narc
I can only hope your question is in jest.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
No, I'm completely serious. You can't transplant a heart taken from a corpse.
Narc you must mean an embalmed corpse,,,,,,,,because they sure are dead when you take the heart out of there:)
"I'm not a doctor or medical researcher, but it seems intuitive to me that adult stem cells ..."
I pray society never bases research decisions on the intuition of lay persons. Many major scientific advances are made by those who transcend intuition.
Wasn't trying to suggest that research should be restricted to only what seems logical to laypersons (or me, specifically)--but I must admit I got a chuckle out of your response. :-)
My point was more that I am more inclined to buy the non-embryo-destroying researchers' claims (in regard to the viability and usefulness of embryo-destroying v. non-embryo-destroying research) because the claims seem logical to me.
Illinois grad Mike Fumento, who would have been a dedicated IP'er if IP (the site, not Gordy) had existed back in the 80's, is a leading advocate of ASC therapy vs. ESC research. In column after column, he has demonstrated the superiority of adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells. Here's a link to one of his many articles:
www.fumento.com/biotech/stemcell2007.html
Mark, you probably remember Mike (you might even remember me)- we spent a few Friday afternoons eating $0.25 hot dogs and drinking cheap beer at Round Robin from 1983-85 or so...
C-U resident,1982-1988, married a townie, and still interested in local issues there...
So you're against heart transplants and organ donation?
I am against organ donation if it means we intentionally kill the donors
Remember the the Monty Python skit:
MAN:
"So you're against heart transplants and organ donation?"
The critical difference is that *I* can make the decision to give my organs away. I guess selling yourself is only ok if somebody else decides to sell you.
There is a good post over at Pharyngula that describes just how difficult it is to go from a stem cell of any kind to a theraputic treatment: What does it take to turn a stem cell into a cure?
Narc,
That article is right along the lines of what my friend said. But he also made an interesting observation concerning the research.
Namely, because the research was so promising AND solutions were being found at a very fast rate compared to other types of research, the scientists spent oodles of time doing it because they were getting results. (Maybe like a carrot before the horse). The other result that was happening is when a test heads in the dead end direction, the dead end becomes obvious much faster.
The scientific community is very excited about this kind of research and that article was certainly very well written on a VERY complicated task.
But again, I do agree with Mark's original quote in the blog.
“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough,†he said"
Any scientist or professional should always consider morality when doing anything that concerns the human race. There is only one God and we cannot claim to be him.
Thanks for the post.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield