SARAH BETH MOORE
Staff Writer
How can a mass of cells define the development of a person just as much as an entire moral and political controversy? Easy.
Embryonic stem cells are used to see how we develop into the complex creatures we are. They are different than adult stem cells, which can only become a limited number of types of tissue. Researchers look at embryonic cells to find potential cures, but in doing this they often destroy an early embryo.
However, new breakthroughs may end a political battle over the embryos, as well as create a whole new breed of organ donors — you.
Cellular Alchemy? You decide.
It may now be possible that a regular cell from your body today could save your life tomorrow.
An adult’s skin cell can be injected with just four pieces of DNA to make it look and act like an embryonic cell. It can then become anything from heart to skin to brain tissue, all genetically identical to the person who gave the skin cell. You can only imagine all of the futuristic possibilities, with cloned organs and new tissue for hospital patients — all without the destruction of an embryo.
They are called “induced pluripotant stem cells (iPS)” because of their groundbreaking ability to become not just a few types of tissue like adult stem cells, but almost infinite number. Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University and James Thomson of University of Wisconsin independently produced these cells, with follow-up research conducted at UCLA by state funding.
What are some opinions on this breakthrough?
“Everyone was waiting for this day to come,” proclaimed the Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, from the National Catholic Bioethics Center. In addition, President Bush is said to be “very pleased” about the new research.
Although there is yet to be practical uses for stem cells to the average person, we are certainly closer than ever. For instance, human embryonic stem cells have been found to help heal damaged rat hearts.
If embryonic cells have done it, then it’s possible the newly engineered cells from an adult could also heal, and without the worries of the immune system not liking the new tissue.
Are there any concerns with this new type of stem cell?
If guilt-free, customized tissue seems a little too good to be true — that’s because it is, at least for now. A slightly misguided placement of the cells could result in teratomic tumors (the kind with hair and teeth) rather than the intended new tissue. Also, the reprogramming of skin cells involves a retrovirus, and sometimes the results can be hit-or-miss. For instance, scientists placed these new cells in rat embryos and they grew to be 20 percent cancerous. The kinks definitely need to be worked out.
When it comes to researching, some scientists are a little unwilling to completely branch out. The new types of stem cells need to be proven that they really act like the “gold standard” that is the real deal — stem cells from embryo. Embryos will be tampered with until they are decided to basically be the same.
However, Ian Wilmut (leading researcher in creating Dolly the cloned sheep) was quoted as saying that he would abandon his cloning efforts, in lieu of the new approach. In reply, Robert Lanza, another embryonic stem cell researcher, is worried that the new technique would drown out other stem cell research like a “tidal wave.”
These concerns are not unfounded. President Bush has already vetoed attempts by Congress to fund the old type of research twice. Ironically, the new morally uncomplicated pluripotant cells may lead politicians to not fund the old type of research badly needed to verify that the new cell act like the old.
As for the real moral dilemmas of using the old embryonic cells — that’s still really up to the individual. Dr. Tom Vandergon, a professor of cellular biology at Pepperdine and a practicing Christian, said he sees “no obvious sin in using embryos that would be wasted, or those from consenting adult donors for the purpose of research in areas that could lead to therapies for very real diseases that plague us, and to possibly validate the research of the new type of stem cells.”
So what does this mean politically?
The current slate of presidential candidates, both Democratic and Republican, have similar positions and voting records when it comes to federal support for stem cell research. Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain all voted to expand funding for stem cell research in 2004 and 2007.
Should Democrats remain in control of the U.S. House and Senate, the Bush policy is likely to be reversed and new federal research dollars are likely. This, coupled with the reduction of ethical complications due to IPS, should mean that stem cell research funding by the federal government is likely to achieve broad support in the coming years and should cease to be a polarizing issue in politics.
However, the understanding and ability to manipulate our world is always evolving, and we will always differ on what the boundaries should be. How science mixes with politics is a complicated developmental process all its own.
“The real issue here is how one values scientific research and findings in relationship to faith and moral judgments,” said professor of political science Todd Bouldin. “Some will argue on both sides that the real issue here is whether one supports life-affirming policies or not. But it seems to me that an even more fundamental question is how one takes account of scientific research in relationship to one’s faith and moral commitments. Some will see science as antagonistic to faith, while others will embrace science as an integral part of faith and the search for truth.”
Regardless of how we resolve those issues, stem cell research is progressing, but often at the state level and not with support from the federal government. So the real question in the presidential race is whether the federal government should fund the research. Or should the burden be moved to a state or private party?
It seems that the nature and nurturing of the American psyche will determine the scientific endeavors, one vote at a time.
03-20-2008
