Regular readers of DISCRIMINATIONS will know (and other can quickly confirm) that I have never written about the debate over embryonic stem cells. That’s largely because my lack of knowledge in that area is matched only by my lack of interest in gaining it.
Still, I was struck by the title of an article, “Stem Cell Advance Muddles Debate,” and this comment in it, in today’s Washington Post:
The news that Harvard scientists have successfully converted human skin cells into embryonic stem cells — without using a human egg or new embryo — is likely to muddle the already complex debate over federal stem cell research policy.
Now I admit, as stated, that I have not followed this debate with any care or attention, but even so it seems to me that I recall that one of the arguments of those who opposed embryonic stem cell research was that it was not necessary to use embryos, that there were other means to achieve the same ends.
If so, why don’t the findings of the Harvard scientists, preliminary though they may be, tend to support one side in that debate, rather than “muddle” it?
I should add, for whatever it’s worth (which, I assure you, is nothing), that when presented with a choice of whether to allow or block research on something, my own inclination is to allow it.
John, as you know, embryonic stem cell research was never blocked. Federal funds were withheld from research on NEW cell lines, but researchers using existing cell lines could still get funding, and the private sector can fund all it wants.
The muddling makes sense if you suppose that part of the reason for pushing embryonic stem cell research is to keep abortion legal. I know that sounds paranoid, but it fits in with (1) the wording here, (2) the fact that embryonic stem cell research is being pushed when it’s not anywhere close to clinical use, while adult stem cells have been used to effect actual cures in human beings, and (3) back when Pres. Reagan died one of the researches admitted that stem cells won’t ever do a thing for Alzheimer’s but you have to give people a story they will accept to get what you want.
I don’t know whether this is what the Post means, but I think it muddles the debate because it hands a point to the side that’s been losing. People who have wanted a ban on embryonic stem-cell research, or even a ban on federal funding, can make the case that society wouldn’t be giving up much by siding with them.
I still don’t think they’re likely to get far, with Frist and Bush against them. But they may have more of a chance now.
Actually, adult stem cells have been harvested from quite a large variety of things: bone marrow, placenta tissue (post birth), baby teeth, skin cells, and fat cells.
Yes, I said fat cells. Anyone care to donate a few? For research sake, of course.
Everything Laura said is correct. Adult stem cell research has seen a multitude of successes. Embryonic stem cell research (which- contrary to popular belief- has *not* been banned) has produced ZERO successes. Not even a shadow of success.
So the question remains- why use the controversial method of research, when the non-controversial methods hold so much more potential?
I agree with Laura that this is almost entirely about abortion. I realize that it sounds bizarre, but I don’t see any way to explain the particular boosting of embryonic stem-cell research in the press, relative to the neglect of adult stem-cell research, apart from the hypothesis that some people really want to stick it to the “fundies” by suggesting that their outmoded superstitions are the only thing standing between us and cures for Alzheimer’s, diabetes, whatever. I’m not suggesting that they wouldn’t be pleased with any cures that do develop in the course of adult stem-cell research, just that in political terms, if a cure involves destroying intact human embryos, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
John, the difference between this new development and the earlier successes of adult stem-cell research, as far as I can see, is that the Harvard folks seem to have been able to convert skin cells into fully-differentiable stem cells. If that’s so, I think it means that they’ve made the embryonic research a sideline at most.
The focus after Bush’s decision four years back was mainly on whether the number of existing cell lines was enough for research purposes. But the goal of many researchers was the idea of getting stem cells genetically matched to a patient, then differentiating them to become the sort of tissue you needed for repair. The genetic matching would mean the tissue would be unlikely to be rejected, and in order to get it, you’d basically need to create an embryo containing the patient’s DNA (can be done — you get hold of an ovum, extract the nucleus, stick in the nucleus you want, and hope everything still works, which it sometimes does not), let it develop a little, and then harvest the stem cells. But if the Harvard researchers are right, we will be able to get similar cells without donated ova or nuclear transfer. This is stupendous if true.
The early reports are a little vague, but I hope this pans out.