Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research - Essay Example

Full (day month year) Should Stem Cell Research be Federally Funded Introduction Federal funding forstem cell research remains a point of contention not only in the scientific and political spheres but also in the general public forum. Although, the lines dividing opposing sides are not clear cut, the positions center around two polarized arguments. On one hand, proponents of federal funding for stem cell research cite the great potential of research findings for application to actual treatment. The potential contributions to treatment justify the claim for federal funding in order for stem cell research to achieve this potential. Funding for various specialized areas of stem cell research are required, including embryonic research, since development in one area affects progress in other areas. The difficulty in asserting this position is the lack of tangible treatment results to convince policymakers, legislators and the public to allocate federal funds for research advancement. On the other hand, those who oppose federal funding for stem cell research gravitate towards the argument that stem cell research involves the destruction of embryos, which have the potential for human life. Those who oppose federal funding for stem cell research do not denounce stem cell research in general but only stem cell research on human embryos. In effect, the federal government is participating in the destruction of life by funding stem cell research. With the two arguments grounded on very different belief systems, there appears to be no point of reconciliation for the two sides of the debate. The discussion describes stem cell research, the debate, the quest for federal funding, and political and legal trends, public opinion trends, and recommended solutions to support the response to the question: should stem cell research be federally funded? 2. What is stem cell research? Stem cell research focuses on investigating the properties and regulation of stem cells, which are “unspecialized cells that can renew themselves indefinitely, and under the right conditions, can develop into more mature cells with specialized functions” (“New Limits” 29). The specialized functions create a range of potential therapeutic uses. These stem cells can be found in embryos at the early stage of development, fetal tissue and adult organs. Of these three sources, stem cells are more abundant and easier to isolate from embryos than from other sources, especially adult tissue. Moreover, reengineering stem cell is less feasible if these came from adult organs and more likely in stem cell from embryos. Stem cell research involves isolating and replicating stem cells from embryos and then reengineering stem cells to become any cell type. (“New Limits” 29) As such, progress in stem cell research for the purpose reengineering stem cells to become specific cell types would progress when working with embryonic samples. There are different kinds of stem cells depending on the degree of plasticity or variability in creating cell types. A totipotent stem cell is considered to have the greatest plasticity. A fertilized egg is a totipotent stem cell because it can create all human organs of a living organism. Totipotent stem cells are used in fertility laboratories. During the initial stage of embryonic development, cell divisions lead to totipotent cells. Latter cell divisions give rise to more stem cells that are beginning to give rise to more specific cell types. (Biven 95; Wagner 8) A pluripotent stem cell emerges from the latter stages of cell division. An embryo has two layers, an outer layer that will form into the placenta and an inner layer called embryoblast that will form the human organism. The inner layer needs the outer layer to give rise to an organism. Pluripotent stem cell comprises of the inner layer of the embryo. By isolating the embryoblast, the potential to create an organism is eliminated, which comprises the foundation of ethical opposition to stem cell research. When the inner layer cells further divide, the stem cell continues to specialize further. (Biven 95; Wagner 8) Multipotent stem cells are those that have specialized to a certain degree of being able to create specific cell types. These types of stem cell emerge from pluripotent stem cell. A multipotent stem cell specializing in creating blood cells have the capacity to create different blood cells, such as red or white blood cells and platelets. An adult stem cell is a multipotent stem cell that specialized in creating cell types contained in the tissue where it was extracted. Stem cell from an adult skin specializes in creating skin cells so that stem cells can be used to regenerate or replace skin cells in adults. (Wagner 9) Of these types of stem cells, the most useful to stem cell research is pluripotent stem cells because these can divide indefinitely and develop into a variety of cell types. Pluripotent stem cells come only from embryoblasts, the inner layer of a fertilized egg. (Wagner 9) As such, the continuity of research on stem cells depends on the availability and continuity of funding for pluripotent stem cell research. 3. Why is stem cell research a point of contention? Stem cell research is strongly debated because of its groundbreaking potential that could also give rise to ethical downsides. There is anticipation of the possible therapeutic benefits of stem cell research but there is also fear of the concurrent ethical repercussions in gaining these benefits. Without actual therapeutic application yet, stem cell research would continue to become a point of contention in the political arena and the public sphere. Stem cell research offers a range of therapeutic benefits that could be realized with research progress. One is in preventive medicine. Birth defects emerge during the stages of embryo development. Understanding the factors that lead to birth defects and knowing the manner of reengineering stem cells to regulate these factors can prevent the onset of birth defects. Another is in therapeutic medicine. Stem cell research into pluripotent stem cells can result to the creation of cells and tissues to generate organs for patients in need of transplant. More people are in need of transplant than the organs that donors can provide. As such, this application of stem cell research can help to shorten the list of patients in line for donated organs. In addition, stem cell research can also lead to actual cell renewal or placement to benefit people with degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease as well as burn victims. (Claiborne 2531) While these potential benefits of stem cell research are compelling, the potential ethical results are also undeniable. This creates the dilemma that underlies the issue federal funding for stem cell research. A case against stem cell research is the creation and destruction of life that this involves. Embryos can be created for research purposes by artificially fertilizing an egg cell with a sperm cell. Stem cells can be extracted from the various stages of cell division. (Taylor 591) Extracting the embryoblast from the outer layer stops the potential of the egg cell to develop into a human life (Biven 95; Wagner 8). Religious outcry against stem cell research is based on the principle of the sanctity of human life so that it cannot be lightly created or destroyed. Non-religious opposition to stem cell research hinges on the propensity of current stem cell research practices that open loopholes for abuse. Stem cell research can become a proprietary endeavor to create a market for stem cell trade, which could increase abortions. Donations from fertility clinics appear to be acceptable but not purchased stem cells. (Taylor 591) 4. Why seek federal funding? With intense debate on federal funding of stem cell research, an important point is the reliance of researchers on federal funding. It is understandable that the federal government is careful in its stand towards funding stem cell research. By representing a constituency, the federal government is at the mercy of public opinion. Even with this limitation, stem cell researchers still rely on federal funding. An explanation for this is the limited funds available from the private sector. Stem cell researchers have obtained funds from private donors, especially from upper income families and personalities who have a personal interest in the outcomes of stem cell research. Most of the cell lines known today were achieved through funds from the private sector (Wagner 8). However, the funds can only cover a portion of research. At the same time, private industry investors that have large funds for investment on breakthroughs are not willing to fund stem research in its early stage (“Stem Cell Research” 24). To move from a point of predicting applications to realizing benefits in actual situations requires greater funding. At the state level, California allocated $3 billion for stem cell research in 2004 (Wagner 8) while New York has allocated $600 million to stem cell researchers in 2009. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has a stimulus fund of $10 billion in 2009 (Harris), some of which can be used to fund stem cell research. In 2011, the $126 million of NIH funds were made available to stem cell research (“Stem Cell Research” 24). If most states and the federal government allocate funds for stem cell research, then progress would significantly multiply, that is if regulation and standards of practice are established to support the expansion of research into more radical areas. Progress in stem cell research largely depends on government funding. However, the allocation of public funds for stem cell research is swayed by political and legal developments. Laws and court decisions support or cancel funding for stem cell research. Policies determine the conditions for funding stem cell research. 5. What are political and legal trends involving federal funding for stem cell research? The stand of the federal government on funding stem cell research depends on public opinion, appeals from researchers and members of the private sector, developments in the field, and international trends on the matter. Division in public sector opinion aligns with partisan politics. Generally, democrats and democratic candidates are more supportive of federal funding for stem cell research than republicans and their candidates. This is apparent in the differences in the funding policy of the three most current administrations together with legal and jurisprudential developments. In 1993, then President Clinton supported the initiative expressed by the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act to allow the use of federal funds on fertilization studies without requiring a review from the responsible oversight committee. NIH discretion to use funds without the requirement for review meant that the agency can allocate funds to stem cell research. (Siegel 215) In response from the republican camp, the Dickey-Wicker amendment was introduced in 1996. The amendment was attached to the law providing for the terms of the budget of the NIH. The effect of the amendment was to prohibit the use of the NIH funds for research that creates human embryos or destroys or injures these embryos in pursuit of research objectives. As such, while the NIH has discretionary powers to fund stem cell research, it is barred from doing so. The most important area of stem cell research is pluripotent stem cells, which requires the extraction of the inner part of the embryonic cell that destroys the potential for life of the embryo. Federal funding for this area of stem cell research was barred by this legal development. (Siegel 215) During the term of former President Bush, he adopted the policy of federal funding with restriction, which was intended as a compromise. The policy allowed the use of public funds on stem cell research covering only the stem cells that have already been obtained from embryos but not gathered by the researchers themselves and the cell lines that already existed before the implementation of the policy on 9 August 2001. (Siegel 215) The restrictions of the policy limited the stem cell research eligible for funding. Researches that collected stem cell for the purpose of the study were not qualified. This led researchers seeking funding to acquire stem cell from outside sources. Fertility clinics were the most important donors of stem cell. Funding was also limited to existing stem cell lines prior to the date of restriction. At that time, 64 cell lines were known but only 24 or 25 were established cell lines. Concerns over the impacts on research progress were raised, including the robustness of these cell lines that were derived from animal studies, compliance with the requirements of allowable stem cells, genetic sufficiency of the cell lines to support diverse applications, safety of the cell lines in human applications, and availability to researchers and cost of stem cell sourced externally. (“New Limits” 29) In March 2009, President Obama signed EO 13505, which annulled the date restriction that was implemented during the previous administration. As an initial component of the directive, the NIH drafted and then finalized the guidelines for stem cell research on humans in July 2009. The guidelines provide that researches qualify for federal funding if the stem cells used in the research came from in vitro fertilization for the purpose of reproduction, the donation process went through a strict process that includes ensuring informed consent expressed in writing, and no form of compensation was involved in the donation of embryos. Studies that created embryos for the purpose of research and the stem cells that were extracted from these embryos were ineligible for funding. As such, even if research on cell lines that were previously banned were now eligible, these may not still qualify for funding if the embryos used were cultured or if the written consent requirement was not met. (Goodman 7) Reactions to this change in policy were mixed. While the effects of the guidelines are yet to be determined, the intended impact is gradual. The policy supports the progress of stem cell research by requiring new research to be fully compliant with NIH guidelines. By full compliance, the policy seeks to achieve results that are ethically sound for the purpose of drawing public support. However, the policy retained the exclusion of researches that utilized cultured embryo together with the stem cells extracted and the cell lines generated. New researches on stem cell are grounded on previous results. With the exclusion of some cell lines, it is not certain whether progress can be made based only on the allowed cell lines. (Meyer and Fossett 303) At the same time, the guideline on written informed consent also raised the quality of new stem cell research. By obtaining a written evidence of informed consent from the donor of human embryo, researchers are able to get funding for their research as well as ensure government and public support for the results. However, by excluding previous stem cell research that were unable to provide signs of written informed consent, the progress of existing research and new research areas is uncertain. (Cohen and Majumder 84-85) Concurrent with the initial impact of the policy is the decision of a federal judge on the 23 August 2010 to allow a preliminary injunction against the NIH on the ground that funding human embryonic stem cell research violates federal statutes. This led the NIH to postpone federally funded research as well as stop the processing of applications for research grants. (“Stem Cell Research” 24) On appeal, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit lifted the injunction, which meant that NIH funding of human embryonic stem cell research can continue (Annas e47). Overall, the direction of political and legal developments pertaining to stem cell research, particularly on human embryonic stem cell, is towards a more accommodating perspective of federal funding of these kinds of research, albeit at a slow pace. Policies have moved from no federal funding for key areas of stem cell research to funding for stem cell research but subject to guidelines. With the current policy seeking to direct stem cell research towards more ethical practice, legislative support to revoke the Dickey-Wicker amendment could be a possibility. 6. What are trends in public opinion on stem cell research? Stem cell research has gained popular support in several countries, including Australia, Israel, Czech Republic, Singapore, Korea and the United Kingdom. These countries are channeling public funds to stem cell research. Other countries with lesser technological capacity also support stem cell research. At the current rate of policy development in the U.S., developments in stem cell research will happen but these will likely happen in other countries. Without more urgent actions, the U.S. will likely be left behind in stem cell research. (Drazen 1789) In the U.S., a current study of public opinion towards human embryonic stem cell research, especially on expectations from stem cell research and the sources of stem cell. The results showed that 1 in 6 respondents supported human cloning with the supporters coming from hardliners and the elderly. There is strong support for stem cells derived from in vitro fertilized eggs and stem cell from therapeutic cloning, especially if used in research for cancer. Support for these sources of stem cell were more or less even for young people and the elderly as well as Catholics and protestants. There is also strong support for stem cell from modified adult cells. The respondents also showed positive attitudes towards stem cell research intended to have therapeutic application for diseases, such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes as well as for cosmetic treatment. (Evans and Kelley 484-488) In another research, the opinion of democrat and republican Americans towards stem cell research was studied. The results showed that majority of Americans support human embryonic stem cell research. Research for medical treatment that involves human embryos was also considered morally acceptable. There was also popular support for continued federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. When comparing democrats and republicans, the latter were more or less equally divided over stem cell research. Democrats expressed greater support and acceptance of federal funding of stem cell research. (Blendon, Minah, and Benson 1853-1954) Overall, federal ban on human cloning is justified by public opinion. However, the limitation of the sources of stem cell research may not be fully supported by public opinion, based on the survey of Americans. A stark point in the study is the similar acceptance levels of Catholics and Protestants of human embryonic stem cell research. Another point is that, while democrats expressed stronger support for federal allocations to stem cell research, adding the more or less half of the republican population who also support federal funding means a significant number of people supporting appropriations for stem cell research. Given these results, the religious perspective may now have lesser influence. In addition, international support for stem cell research appears to be growing. There are countries, like the United Kingdom, which have already legalized the sources of embryonic stem cells that are still restricted in the U.S. Since policy development rests on public opinion, federal support for stem cell research ought to widen. 7. What are the proposed solutions to the funding dilemma? In the context of the movement of policymaking towards federal funding for stem cell research and the significant public support for this policy, the direction of efforts to resolve the dilemma on federal funding should focus on increasing public acceptance for stem cell research. There are two ways of doing this. One is by improving NIH guidelines for federally funded stem cell research. A guideline already developed under the current policy is the requirement of written consent to show that the donor has been informed of the use of the donated embryo. A guideline that should be reconsidered is the limitation on the sources of the embryo. There appears to be significant public acceptance of different sources of embryo. The thrust of the guidelines would be on establishing protocols, based on research standards and best practices, which would prevent the abuse of the sourcing of embryos for stem cell research. The guideline should ensure that the embryos cultured for the purpose of stem cell research should not be done irresponsibly or inappropriately. Other guidelines should also be established for the different sources of stem cell. The other is the establishment of an oversight committee for stem cell research. Although, having an oversight committee could result to limitations on progress in new research areas. Review of stem cell researches would enhance acceptance by the scientific community, politicians, and the public. An ideal oversight committee is comprised of scientists, politicians and civilians. The composition could create conflicts. However, through the committee, various interests are represented for resolution. Researchers do not have a direct link to the public for purposes of information dissemination. An oversight committee for stem cell research can bring together the concerns of researchers and the public in a single forum for the settlement of any conflicting interests. 8. Conclusion Stem cell research should be federally funded. A key path to progress for stem cell research is federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. The private sector cannot sustain financial support for stem cell research. Only the government has the resources to fund stem cell research. The contention over the federal funding of stem cell research emerged because of the potential therapeutic benefits of stem cell research that could lead to ethical issues. Consideration of political and legal developments shows movement towards a more accommodating perspective of federal funding for these kinds of research, albeit at a slow pace. Public opinion in the U.S. has also become more accepting of stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell studies. The religious perspective may now exercise lesser influence. Public support for stem cell research has been achieved in several countries. Since policy development depends on public opinion, federal support for stem cell research ought to widen in response to public opinion and international influences. Managing the dilemma on federal funding can be through efforts that seek greater public support, such as improving the NIH guidelines for federally funded stem cell research and creating an oversight committee for stem cell research that can bring together the concerns of researchers and the public in a single forum for the settlement of any conflicting interests. Works Cited “New limits on funding of stem cell research questioned.” Issues in Science and Technology 18.1 (2001): 29. “Stem cell research funding in jeopardy.” Issues in Science & Technology 27.2 (2010): 24. Annas, George. “Sudden Death for a Challenge to Federal Funding of Stem-Cell Research.” The New England Journal of Medicine 364.22 (2011): e47. Biven, Miranda. “Administrative Developments: NIH Backs Federal Funding For Stem Cell Research.” The Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics 27.1 (1999): 95-96. Blendon, Robert, Kim, Minah, and Benson, John. “The Public, Political Parties, and Stem Cell Research.” The New England Journal of Medicine 365.20 (2011): 1853-1856. Claiborne, Kathryn. “Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research: 15 Years of Indecision” The Journal of Clinical Investigation 121.7 (2011): 2531. Cohen, Cynthia, and Majumder, Mary. “Future Directions for Oversight Of Stem Cell Research in the United States.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19.1 (2009): 79-103 Drazen, Jeffrey. “Embryonic Stem-Cell Research - The Case for Federal Funding.” The New England Journal of Medicine 351.17 (2004): 1789-1790. Evans, Mariah, and Kelley, Jonathan. “US Attitudes toward Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” Nature Biotechnology 29.6 (2011): 484-488. Goodman, Katherine. “Stem Cell Research: Becoming Less Restrictive.” Scitech Lawyer 6.4 (2010): 7. Harris, Gardiner. “Some stem cell research limits lifted.” The New York Times 17 April 2009. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. Meyer, Michelle, and Fossett, James. “The More Things Change: The New NIH Guidelines on Human Stem Cell Research.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19.3 (2009): 289-307. Siegel, Andew. “Temporal Restrictions and the Impasse on Human Embryonic Stem-Cell Research.” Lancet 364.9429 (2004): 215-218. Taylor, Patrick. “The Gap between Law and Ethics in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Overcoming the Effect of U.S. Federal Policy on Research Advances and Public Benefit.” Science and Engineering Ethics 11.4 (2005): 589-616. Wagner, Cynthia. “Values Conflicts in Stem-Cell Research.” The Futurist 41.1 (2007): 8-9. Read More