PRO & CON: Stem Cell Research
Does research for potential cures justify the methods used?
Ideological arguments against stem cell research are not valid. There is no reason to oppose a process that could lead to life-changing findings.
SCOTT MILLER
Perspectives Assistant
The question of supporting and funding embryonic stem cell research is, of course, a moral and ethical one. However, morality and ethics can be derived from sources other than religious dogma.
On one hand, there are the opponents who are crying “morality” because they believe that stem cell research is only possible through abortion, which is not true. During invitro fertilization, as many as 10 unused embryos, which could be used for research, are usually discarded.
On the other hand, there are the supporters who believe that the mere possibility of what we can achieve, medically, through embryonic stem cell research not only compels us, but obligates us to do everything in our power to employ the research, and subsequent findings to the benefit of all.
There is no disagreement that stem cells could eventually cure now incurable diseases such as Parkinson’s, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, cancer, heart disease and bone diseases. The fact that these claims are undisputed is incredible.
There is, in general, a misconception about morality and ethics. When it comes to issues such as this, the public believes that the term morality is derived from religious doctrines only. But what about our duty to all Americans who are affected by these diseases? Do we not owe them our best efforts to alleviate them of their horrible illnesses? Don’t these obligations transcend religious boundaries? Are these not moral issues, as well?
As the son of a paraplegic, I say, “yes, that obligation does exist.”
Take the questions that I just asked, and weigh them against the question being posed by stem cell research opponents: is it unethical to destroy possible human life in order to save the disabled?
Well, the entire basis of their question is now defunct, due to the breakthrough findings of Harvard University scientists in August 2005. These scientists have discovered a way to use ‘blank’ embryonic stem cells that do not come from fertilized embryos, but still fuse with adult skin cells, and therefore, are still capable of curing all these diseases. That means that in the process of creating the stem cell lines, no human embryo will be destroyed.
Great. Isn’t that what all the fuss is about from the Right-to-Life opponents of stem cell research? They didn’t want to sacrifice what might possibly be, given the right conditions, human life, in order to cure millions of Americans that, as of now, have no hope of a cure.
The catch is that these scientists predict that it will take at least 10 years to perfect this process, something nearly infeasible without federal assistance. That is especially difficult since the research is being banned in laboratories that are federally funded, even if the actual research is privately funded.
I know that there are rumors out there that adult stem cells are just as viable as embryonic stem cells, but that’s just not true. A consensus of scientists have maintained that adult stem cells are too difficult to find. Also, their morphing ability is greatly less than that of embryonic cells. Since the morphing ability is what makes stem cells such a promising venture, embryonic cells are obviously the better option.
Yet the president still vetoed HR-810, the non-partisan congressional bill aimed at supporting stem cell research through federal funding. And he did it all on ideological grounds. This reminds me of one of my favorite tongue-in-cheek jokes about American politics: “Since we here in America live in a theocracy, the beliefs of one religious group are thrust upon all of us.
Now the big question: What is the hold up?
Ideological arguments are not valid, through a newly discovered process, fertilized embryos would be spared, and let’s not forget that we could make life immensely better for millions of Americans of every race, religion, income, education, etc. Why not support this?
There are two opposing arguments for morality and ethics in the debate on stem cell research. One upholds our moral and ethical obligation to every American with an incurable disease that could be cured through stem cell research.
The other maintains that due to religious beliefs, no one should receive the benefits of stem cell research.
Researchers cannot be trusted with the power to conduct embryonic studies, especially when disgraceful scientific scandals have occurred.
BRIAN CHATWIN
Staff Writer
Ten years ago, the University of California Irvine Fertility Clinic went through a horrendous scandal. The physicians running the program were profiting by illegally harvesting eggs from unsuspecting female patients. These doctors were then selling the eggs to couples struggling with infertility. Evidence recovered by investigators showed that thousands of stolen eggs became children, and the women never knew about it.
People must think of the UCI tragedy when considering the emotional pleas claiming that stem cell research can be the magic bullet to cure human suffering. It is not that I am discouraged by the possibility that science might find the key to treating debilitating diseases, but I am not convinced the research community can be trusted with that power.
Controls within the scientific community are spotty at best. Not only do scandals, like the one at UCI, call into question their safeguards but other contemporary stories have led me to believe that the research community is operating in an imprudent manner – knowing the right ends (curing diseases) but bastardizing the means to achieve those ends.
The South Korean medical community was shaken as its most prominent researcher admitted to falsifying his work on genetic cloning.
A Norwegian medical clinic claimed it developed a drug that eliminated oral cancer, later admitting they lied, resulting in horrific side effects for hundreds of people.
In the United States, Merck pulled Vioxx off the shelves when it learned that scientists had withheld critical data about the drug in order to rush it to the market.
The problem with stem cell research is that it will fall prey to this kind of widespread abuse. In the race to be the first drug company to cure Parkinson’s disease or Alzheimer’s, scientists will ignore ethical standards, claiming that their questionable means are justified if they find a cure. This is dangerous.
Additionally, the scientific community has not made a convincing argument that embryonic stem cells are necessary.
Currently, at facilities around the world, 80 known lines of embryonic stems cells are under development. To this date, zero results have been produced. Embryonic stem cell research is a theory – a hypothesis that when tested (by 80 different lines) has yet to produce any results. Advocates argue that they need more of these stem cells to continue testing – in the vain hope that they might prove their hypothesis valid.
Conversely, tremendous strides have been made with adult stem cells. Harvard, Northwestern University and the University of Texas at Austin have shown that adult cells are producing with amazing results. Adult stem cells are plentiful, safe and ultimately productive. The same criteria cannot be said of embryonic stem cells.
Adult stem cells can be harvested in various ways – with no harm to the patient. Harvesting embryonic stem cells kills the patient. End of discussion.
Finally, the politics surrounding embryonic stem cell research makes me skeptical. Anytime special interest groups are involved in scientific research, I wonder if a more devious agenda isn’t at work. It isn’t a big logical leap to see that legalizing embryonic stem cell research is just another way to legalize abortion. A woman, hoping to terminate her pregnancy could “donate” her embryo – thus sanitizing the nasty abortion business. This woman could actually feel like she was doing good by society, contributing to medical research. The guilt and shame associated with abortion would be gone. Personal responsibility would be washed away. To me, this is what stem cell research supporters are trying achieve. They could care less about the research. They simply want to advance their political agenda.
I recognize temptation in the “what if” scenarios. “What if we stem cells can cure Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s?” “What if we can they provide the key to cure other diseases?” These “what ifs” are the only argument the stem-cell research supporters rely on to advance their agenda.
Let them provide proof that embryonic stem cell research works. Until then, we cannot allow it. Science cannot be trusted with the power of human life until it can prove it is worth the sacrifice of the unborn.
09-07-2006