C. Lacy Thompson
LBM Associate Editor
Almost 25 years ago, an author visited Louisiana College in Pineville, to talk
about the dangers of technological advances.
His message was simple – the world was entering uncharted
territory fraught with moral and ethical peril.
Almost 25 years ago, an author visited Louisiana College in Pineville, to talk
about the dangers of technological advances.
His message was simple – the world was entering uncharted
territory fraught with moral and ethical peril.
In response, the time had come for researchers and others alike
to stop and ask how far they should advance into the new land – and under
what terms.
“Just because we can do something does not mean we should,”
the author emphasized again and again.
A quarter of a century later, his words could not be more relevant
as the world faces the issue of stem-cell research.
One would have to be a hermit almost not to know of the debate
now underway regarding the stem-cell procedure.
Should it be done? How should it be done?
What are the other options?
The debate is crossing all sorts of lines.
It is a political one, a religious one, an ethical one, a medical
one. It is creating new dividing lines. Republicans come down on both sides
of the issue. So do Democrats. Some conservatives are for the research, some
are against. The same is true for moderates and liberals.
In the midst of such debate are typical Americans, many of
whom know little about the issue except that it is a complex – and emotional
– one.
For one thing, it involves the mysterious area of genetic research,
an area that few completely understand.
For another, it involves both principles and emotions.
Consider the principle debate – should human embryos be
sacrificed for the sake of research?
Now, consider the emotional aspect – should research be
allowed that could help cure grandmothers Alzheimers or dads
heart disease or sisters cancer?
Ask the question one way – and one gets one answer.
Ask it another way – and the answer is different for many.
Make no mistake – there is nothing simple or easy about
this debate, and the fallout of any decision will be huge.
Since that is the case, the Baptist Message has prepared an
elementary primer for persons concerned with the issue. Obviously, the following
information is not complete. But it does offer some basic details designed to
help a person understand the stem-cell research debate – and what is at
stake.
What are stem cells?
Stem cells are a basic building block of human life. The body
has about 220 different types of cells, such as heart muscle cells, liver cells,
brain cells and such. Each of these are specialized cells, designed for a particular
function.
Stem cells are different. They sometimes are called primitive
cells or pluripotent stem cells. They have two key characteristics. One, they
can regenerate themselves. Two, they can develop into many other types of cells.
Indeed, researchers already have developed stem cells into more than 110 different
types of human cells. Researchers say stem cells actually can develop into all
of the organs of the human body.
Why are stem cells important?
The natural tendency of the body is to repair itself when injured.
However, some injuries are so great that repair is not possible. For instance,
the body cannot repair heart disease because it cannot generate new heart cells
to replace damaged ones. The same is true for many other illnesses, such as
Parkinsons and Alzheimers and cancer.
However, stem cells make “repair” of such diseases
possible, researchers say. By using stem cells to grow new, healthy cells for
a body, the effects of diseases can be reversed, they contend. Thus, stem cells
could grow healthy heart cells that could be introduced into a diseased heart.
Researchers say the potential impact is emormous and could
result in treatment of such things as brain damage, some forms of cancer, severe
burns, diabetes, Lou Gehrigs Disease, Huntingtons Disease, leukemia,
lupus, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injuries, among
others.
How are stem cells obtained?
Here is the crux of the issue. There are a few ways to obtain
stem cells, but the purest is from human embryos that are just days old. At
that point, the embryo is smaller than the head of a needle. Still, it already
contains stem cells that can be harvested. However, to obtain those cells, the
embryo must be destroyed, a procedure most pro-life advocates oppose as murder
of a human being.
Stem cells also can be obtained from human fetal tissue and
from adult tissue. Opponents of embryonic stem-cell research insist more work
should be done in that area. However, researchers claim those cells are most
limited in their potential and availability. They say embryonic stem cells are
the purest and most useful.
Where do the embryos come from?
The most available source of human embryos for researchers
come from the field of in vitro fertilization.
Typically, when a couple undergoes in vitro fertilization,
as many as two dozen embryos are created. They are allowed to grow about three
days before being frozen. Some are used to impregnate the woman – with
the rest placed in storage. At this time, there are 100,000-plus stored embryos
in this country.
There is no easy way to dispose of the frozen embryos. Usually,
they are not wanted by other couples, although there are those that work to
place frozen embryos with others.
In most cases, the embryos eventually are destroyed.
Researchers argue that the embryos should be used to harvest
stem cells rather than simply being destroyed. After all, why not allow the
embryos to be used for some good, in a way that could help others, they stress.
Opponents of that move argue that human life – which they consider the embryos
to be – should not be sacrificed for the sake of research. Indeed, in making
their argument, they often refer to the Nazis, who cavalierly used humans for
various “experimentation” purposes. They also urge more research on
the use of adult stem cells instead of embryonic ones.
When did all this begin?
Researchers first announced the isolation of stem cells in
November 1998. A month later, Congress determined stem- cell research was prohibited
by the existing ban on federal funding for work involving the destruction of
human embryos.
In April 2000, the battle was joined as Congress considered
a bill to allow federally-funded researchers to extract stem cells from human
embryos.
In August 2000, United States leaders announced a sort of compromise.
Federal funds could be used for research with stem cells obtained from human
embryos. However, the stem cells would have to be obtained through private funding.
The action was roundly criticized by some, who said the guidelines were immoral
and amounted to participation in murder.
On the campaign trail, candidate Al Gore embraced the guidelines.
President-to-be George Bush rejected them, announcing he opposed federal funding
for stem-cell research.
In December 2000, Britain announced its approval of stem-cell
research.
A month later, the American Medical Association sent a letter
to President-elect Bush, urging federal funding of stem-cell research. The next
month, some 80 Nobel Prize laureates sent a similar letter to the president.
In March, several pro-life groups sued the U.S. government,
seeking to block federal funding of stem-cell research.
The next month, Bush canceled a National Institutes of Health meeting to consider
requests for new funding, meaning researchers would have to seek private monies
when their existing grants were exhausted. Bush then ordered a review of the
entire funding program for the research.
Since then, groups and persons have lined up on opposite sides
of the issues. Even the Pope has entered the fray, addressing the issue during
a recent meeting with Bush and urging a rejection of any practices that devalues
and violates human life “at any stage, from conception to natural death.”
What is Bush expected to decide?
No one knows for sure what the president will decide. He has
strong allies urging him in each direction. For instance, Health and Human Services
Secretary Tommy Thompson favors funding stem-cell research. Some suggest Bush
may choose a middle ground, allowing funding for research on embryos already
obtained, while refusing to fund research on new embryos. Others say funding
would allow strong guidelines to be established for research, while private
research would be unregulated. But all is speculation at this point.
How important is federal funding?
Observers agree that federal funding is key to ongoing research. Some say the
denial of federal funding could greatly harm the biotech industry. Not only
would it shut off a major source of funding, but it likely would result in a
loss of private funding as companies shied away from an area that had earned
the government stamp of disapproval.
Some observers also point out that denial of federal funding
could push researchers out of the United States to Britain or other countries
that may allow stem-cell work.
What is at stake?
For proponents of stem-cell research, the future of the industry
and the potential of dramatic advances are at risk.
For opponents of the procedure, the nature and quality of society
is at stake, they insist. Approval of embryonic stem-cell research is a step
down a slippery slope to the devaluing of human life. Embryonic stem-cell research
makes life nothing more than a commodity to be used, some argue.
For Bush, his very future could be at stake. More than one
observer has noted that his fathers presidency was hurt considerably when
the elder Bush reneged on a promise not to raise taxes. If Bush breaks his promise
on stem-cell research, the fallout could be drastic.
“Now, the true test of character,” said Richard Land,
president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. “Will
he keep his promises? … nothing less than the credibility of his word is at
stake. If he wiggles out of his promise, will he cease to be viewed as a pro-life
president? Probably not. Will his moral credibility be damaged with his core
supporters, perhaps irreparably? Without doubt.”
Where do Southern Baptists stand?
At their 2001 Southern Baptist Convention in New Orleans, messengers
approved a resolution decrying human cloning, including experimentation on human
embryos.
What is the latest news?
A major development occurred recently when it was learned that
a pair of research groups had created human embryos for the express purpose
of stem-cell research and had initiated experiments to clone human embryos for
the purpose of obtaining stem cells.
Pro-life leaders decried the moves. But even some who support
stem-cell research agreed it is one thing to use
embryos created for another purpose and slated for destruction and quite another
to create embryos for the purpose of research.
What can a concerned person do?
A first step is for a person to become informed. Then, one
can check with various groups for means of involvement.
Also, one can communicate with the president by calling (202) 456-1111
or via e-mail at president@whitehouse.gov.
One also can communicate with U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy
Thompson at (202) 690-7203 or via e-mail at hhsmail@os.dhhs.gov.