Tag Archives: biology

Stem Cell Research: Myths and Realities

This post is a supplement to Funky’s call for clarity in the stem cell
debate. It was originally published in The Catholic Anchor, a student-run newspaper/magazine sponsored by the Ryan Catholic Newman Center.

Over the past five years, the embryonic stem cell debate has haunted
politicians and voters alike, and it has not grown any easier to cut
through the rhetoric coming from the politicians and activists. Last
year, President Bush said that federal spending on embryonic stem cells
should be limited. On the other side, Kerry and Edwards promised
extensive support on embryonic research, promising cures to a host of
diseases.

Now that the hype has died down for a little while, I found two articles
that do a good job of representing where stem cell research stands On
one hand, there is an article (www.indystar.com, January 16,
2005) about a paraplegic woman in Michigan is learning how to walk again
thanks to cell treatment. While we could not see Christopher Reeve walk
again, at least such a cure is drawing closer for the many other
paralysis victims in the United States

On the other hand, we learned (via www.wired.com, January 31, 2005, and www.halifaxlive.com, January 30,
2005) that embryonic stem cells have been converted to motor neurons,
and that researchers are planning on transplanting these cells into a
lab animal. Presumably all their work has been in vitro so far,
with isolated cells in a culture dish and not inside a living organism.

We have two articles: In one case, we made human embryonic stem cells
become human nerve cells; in the other case, a woman is learning how to
walk While halifaxlive.com is a small news service like indystar.com,
Wired is an influential technology magazine. Should
it not be a bigger deal that a human being is being at least partially
cured of paralysis?

Big Media is often suspiciously quiet about adult stem cell
successes in human, while an embryonic stem cell experiment performed on
animals may get prime coverage at the New York Times.

I have been in stem cell-related activism since 1999, when the NIH under
the Clinton administration opened the issue of embryonic stem cell
research (ESCR) to public opinion. The myths I saw blinding people about
the real issues with stem cell research back then are still as strong as
ever now. I hope, Gentle Reader, that this article may set the record
straight on some key issues.

Myth One: ESCR is the only form of stem cell research, and if you
oppose ESCR, you therefore oppose all stem cell research.

Wrong Embryonic stem cells are but one kind of stem cell
Human embryonic stem cells are derived from 4 to 5 day-old embryos This
is before cells differentiate into the many tissues and organs making up
a more mature human. Thus, those cells have the potential to grow into
many different tissue types, making them potentially very useful as a
flexible tool to rebuild lost or damaged tissue. They are called
pluripotent stem cells for this reason, since they have the power or
potential to develop into many (plures)
types of cells.

However, many tissues in a mature human have another class of stem
cell called multipotent stem cells. As I will discuss later, these cells
have great promise in research. But the take-home message for this myth
is that one may oppose embryonic research and still support stem cell
research. Opposing ESCR does not make you some anti-science Luddite. It
just means that you think that it violates medical and scientific ethics.

Myth Two: Even though we have adult multipotent stem
cells, they may not be able to do everything that embryonic stem cells
can. Therefore, we still need ESCR.

Multipotent adult stem cells are more specialized than
embryonic stem cells, but recent studies suggest that they can do
whatever we want. You may find these stem cells in bone marrow, skin,
fat (no shortage of that!), and even in the brain, which people had
previously assumed had no ability to regenerate. Scientists believed
that these stem cells could only differentiate into whatever tissue they
were found in. A bone marrow stem cell could produce a white blood cell,
for instance, but not a neuron. Recent studies have shown that
multipotent stem cells can be “coaxed” into assuming many different
studies. One exciting study on rats used bone marrow-derived stem cells
to repair heart tissue damaged by a heart attack, for instance. On
February 2, 2005, The Washington Post reported a new type of adult stem
cell in the bone marrow that may be as versatile as embryonic stem
cells.

However, even if there are some inherent limitations on just how far
you can get a multipotent stem cell to change, because they appear in so
many tissues in the body, you can probably find a stem cells that come
from whatever organ or tissue that you are trying to treat.

The aforementioned Wired article on stem cells even mentioned that
getting embryonic cells to assume a particular identity is difficult,
which is the chief reason why the experiment creating nerve cells is
getting attention. The vaunted flexibility of pluripotent stem cells can
therefore also be curse: If you cannot get the cells to reliably assume
a particular identity for a particular disease, they are useless, or
even harmful, to a patient.

Myth Three: Embryonic stem cell therapies are around the
corner.

ESCR advocates have done much to manipulate feelings: They imply
that embryonic stem cells are the only answer (see Myth One) and then
bring out Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve (may he rest in peace)
and made people feel that by opposing embryonic research, they were
denying Fox and Reeve a chance at life because (they imply) big
discoveries are just around the corner.

The fact is that embryonic stem cells have not had a single
successful clinical trial in humans. The press loves to play up whenever
there is a successful ESCR experiment on rats or monkeys, but adult stem
cells have already cured 56 human illnesses. Thatï¿½s right;
we treated real patients with adult stem cells and cured them outright
or greatly alleviated the symptoms. These are not just animal
experiments and speculation. Adult stem cells are delivering the goods,
while the ESCR activists just deliver promises.

Check out Do No Harmï¿½s website at www.stemcellresearch.org for
their “scoreboard” on embryonic versus adult stem cell cures, and links
to articles on some of these advances.

Myth Four: People oppose embryonic research solely on
religious grounds.

Presumably in a pluralist society, we should avoid theological
arguments that may leave out people of different faiths.

This makes some sense, though I must say that nobody seems to have a
problem with the extensive religious involvement with civil rights from
the Reverend Martin Luther King on to the social justice crusaders of
today. However, I should point out prominent pro-lifer Nat Hentoff. Mr.
Hentoff is an atheist liberal and 1^st Amendment champion who
writes for the ultra-liberal Village Voice. Hardly a
Bible-thumper! Yet he courageously argues for the dignity of human life
from conception till natural death.

The surprising fact is that the general pro-life position
about personhood starting at conception is at least as scientifically
solid as other theories. Pro-lifers generally consider personhood to
begin with conception, when a new, genetically unique organism is
created. Pro-choice positions generally define personhood when some part
of development happens, such as organ differentiation or nervous system
development. They are not always very clear about why these
developmental milestones should matter, about why a switch is flipped
when the neural tube closes and a non-person becomes a person. For many
pro-choicers, personhood is up for negotiation, so to speak, and if the
parents do not want the fetusï¿½or even a newbornï¿½then that newbornï¿½s
rights are null and void. This is the position of Princetonï¿½s Peter
Singer, for instance, who supports infanticide on babies as old as 28
days.

Of course, if personhood is up for negotiation, could not any
minority be denied humanity/personhood when the rest of the population
decides to “vote them off the island”? We have had enough cases of
genocide in the past century to last us for the rest of human history,
thank you! We do not need to sacrifice human lives or dignity for vague,
long-term promises of a medical revolution.

The stem cell revolution is already here in the form of adult stem
cell technology, and there are plenty of adult stem cells for the taking
in our own bodies.

Pet Peeve: “All Stem Cell Research is the Same”

11 Replies

It drives me nuts when I see the media referring to both adult and embryonic stem cell research under a single title. One of the uphill battles the prolife movement is currently fighting is making that distinction obvious to non-scientists. Those who support ESCR have done a terrific job of making people believe that opposition to ESCR is unscientific and medieval. They’ve done this by removing distinction between adult and embryonic stem cells. Their propaganda dupes people into thinking that those who oppose ESCR oppose all SCR.

Unfortunately, sometimes those opposed to ESCR play right into their opponents’ hands by playing their name game. This has to stop. If we want to change peoples’ minds and stop the frankensteinian field of ESCR, we need to educate the public. Let’s start by calling things by their proper names.

Embryonic Stem Cells: A Bum Deal

13 Replies

New Technique Devised For Human Stem Cells
Scientists in Massachusetts reported yesterday that they have developed a new means of growing human embryonic stem cells, the versatile cells that show promise as treatments for various diseases.

Interesting, as this bears on how many of the nominally-approved hESC lines in 2001 turned out to be corrupted by the mouse cells in those lines. However, while the ESCR people fiddle around with parameters for *in vitro* work , we are seeing the real deal with adult stem cells. I know this is something of a broken record on this issue, but so is the media. At least I’m a broken record on the facts. 😉

Take a hypothetical situation: If you were a real estate developer, and the contractor building your homes came to you and bragged about a big breakthrough–they dug a whole foundation that day!–while the other developer had people *moving into* his subdivision, wouldn’t it be time to fire your contractor?

People invoke progress and the inevitable march of scientific knowledge when they try to sucker the public into supporting ESCR. But if it’s so inevitable, why are the ESCR advocates spending their time kicking and screaming for state and federal money in lieu of getting FDA approval for human trials, as their adult stem cell counterparts are doing? If this field is so robust, why does it always need legislative life support and tender loving care and protection from those evil Christian luddites? And always, more money. We’ve seen several advanced countries dive into this research head-first (e.g., the U.K., South Korea and Singapore), so even in countries where the opprobium against government funding for this research doesn’t exist, we don’t see magic happening.

This does not mean that ESCR won’t deliver significant results in the future–I’d be surprised if it didn’t, though I doubt it’ll do anything clinically that we will not be able to do better with other methods–but perhaps some of its advocates should tone down their rhetoric about its tremendous benefits, and the huge disservice its opponents are doing by blocking funding for it. The evidence does not seem to justify such inflammatory means.

Against the Grain

13 Replies

…as well as 2000 years of Church teaching. According to AP, "the spokesman for the Catholic Church in Spain has said it supports the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS." Well, doesn't this makes things interesting?

Church officials in Spain are attempting damage control by telling the press, "Contrary to what some have said, it is not true that the Church has changed its position on condoms." I doubt such back-peddling will make this issue go away.

I'm quite curious to see what Rome does about this little rebellion. Some will argue that a bishop has the authority to instruct the members of his diocese however he pleases, so long as he doesn't go against dogma or infallible pronouncements. This is true. Technically, the injunction against artificial contraception was not declared infallibly. However, three popes have declared such an injunction and as St. Augustine said, "Rome has spoken; the case is closed". Papal encyclicals are authoritative and the instructions therein can only be rescinded by a pope. Others will claim that while the Church speaks authoritatively against using condoms as contraceptions, She has not condemned their use to prevent the spread of AIDS and other diseases. This is flawed reasoning. Sex is intended for reproduction within marriage. Sex outside marriage is unaceptable. If people do not have sex with multiple partners, disease cannot spread. What then of babies born to infected parents? Those infected should refrain from all sexual activity and become "eunuchs for the kingdom". If the infected cease sexual activity and everyone ceases extra-marital sexual activity, the disease will not spread further. Using condoms is like covering a bleeding artery with a band-aid.

Continue reading →

Pages: 1 2 3

Frankenstein’s Intellectual Progeny

3 Replies

A CONSUMER’S GUIDE TO A BRAVE NEW WORLD
By Wesley J. Smith

"Will the cost of biotechnology’s alleviation of human suffering be our acceptance of a ‘Brave New World,’ where scientists wield godlike power to refashion our biological nature’ If so, we will not get there in one giant leap. Rather, we will descend into the darkness in small steps, all but unaware that the shadows are lengthening."

Welcome to Our Brave New World: An Interview with Wesley J. Smith
By John Zmirak

"Wesley Smith has exposed corporate corruption with Ralph Nader, and warned against the eugenic implications of the ‘right to die’ movement. In his new book, ‘A Consumer’s Guide to a Brave New World,’ he tells how the Biotech industry’s push for stem cell research and human cloning threatens the rights of the poor, the sick, and the unborn."

Ales Rarus

A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog