Day of reckoning for stem cell research nears
Moral, ethical qualms could put brakes on advances in America
 | Jim Maurer, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease and is a spokesman for the interests of patients with the disease, watched President Bush explain his limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research from his kitchen in Marshfield, Mass., in 2001. |
Charles Krupa / AP file |
 | Slide show |
 | Biggest losers: Before and after See the amazing transformations and pounds shed by the season five contestants. more photos |
The disagreements arise when you start talking about where those cells come from.
Most commonly, scientists work with adult stem cells, which are typically found in bone marrow and blood from umbilical cords discarded after childbirth. They are what is known as “multipotent cells” — that is, cells with the potential to turn into other types of cells. But therein lies their limit: They can transform only into a certain number of new cell types. Moreover, they are hard to isolate and work with.
More promising are stem cells taken from human embryos. They can develop into any type of cell in the human body — even, eventually, entire organisms. For certain disorders, such as diabetes, there is no other known way to produce replacement organ systems that might constitute a cure.
Embryonic stem cells are also hard to work with, but their biggest problem is an ethical one: They are harvested primarily from embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures and — most controversially — from abortions. Because the embryos are destroyed either way, nearly all religious denominations reject such harvesting as an unacceptable taking of human life. So do many scientists.
The debate is bitter and rooted in fundamental values: Does the potential benefit of exploiting embryonic stem cells to cure diseases outweigh the moral repugnance many Americans have at how they are collected? Researchers and ethicists on all sides agree on one thing: The debate must be settled soon.
The worst case, they agree, is that because the questions are so complicated, it could take universities, biogenetic corporations and regulators years to reach a consensus. By then, it could be too late. Scientists in Europe and Asia, where such research is less politically charged, have already taken a lead in work on embryonic cells, and American scientists will have much to do to catch up or demonstrate that adult stem cells alone can provide the same benefits.
Related coverage |
President Bush wades in
We are where we are today because of President Bush’s address to the nation on Aug. 9, 2001, when he announced his administration’s policy on embryonic stem cell research.
The president made a remarkable speech, explaining the arguments for such research even as he rejected most of them. In the end, he arrived at a compromise: The government would not ban the research, but neither would it fund work on “lines” of stem cells derived from embryos created after that date. In all, as many as 78 lines of usable cells would be eligible for research using federal funds.
But the president’s goal of de-politicizing the question was never met. Opponents tarred his policy as a “ban” on stem-cell science — even though it had no impact on privately or locally funded research, and even though it did not affect adult stem cells or those taken from cord blood at all, and even though it did not even halt the federally funded research that was already under way.
Both Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats’ 2004 presidential candidate, and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, seized on the “ban” as an applause line in the campaign. The administration, they charged, preferred to score moralistic points at the expense of progress that could cure many horrible diseases.
- Discuss Story On Newsvine
- Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh - Instant Message
MORE FROM HEALTH |
 Health Section Front |
| Add Health headlines to your news reader: |