Stem Cell and Why It Needs to Continue and Be Funded by Congress - Research Paper Example

?Sharon Swanson Mike Jensen English Composition 1020 20 April Stem Cell Research: A Promising Horizon The benefits to society by the introduction of new medical technologies have been considerable. For example, the introduction of vaccines and antibiotics has significantly improved the well-being of people all over the globe. Stem cell research has provided promising advancement in combating health conditions such as leukemia, Lou Gehrig’s disease, breast cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease. The science of stem cell treatments is potentially more significant than these other innovations and is beginning a new stage of exploration and growth that could be the forerunner of unprecedented cures and therapies. The present enthusiasm over prospective stem cell-produced remedies radiates from the new innovations of genetic biology. Though one cannot forecast the results from basic research, there is enough information available to suggest that a good deal of this enthusiasm is justified. This enthusiasm is not shared by those of the religious right. This faction is opposed to embryonic stem cell research which they claim as immoral and characterize as devaluing human life, much the same as does abortion, drawing a link between the two. This discussion will provide a brief overview of stem cell research and its benefits to society, the debate surrounding the issue and the arguments for continued research. Embryonic stem cells possess the ability to restore defective or damaged tissues which would heal or regenerate organs which have been adversely affected by a degenerative disease. Cell therapy has the very real potential to provide new cures for diabetes, cancer, kidney disease, macular degeneration, multiple sclerosis and many other kinds of diseases. Cell therapy has also demonstrated a great potential to help repair and regenerate spinal cord injuries which would help paralyzed patients recapture lost body functions. The possibilities are limitless including greatly advancing the human lifespan because aging organs could be replenished. “We may even have the ability one day to grow our own organs for transplantation from our own stem cells, eliminating the danger of organ rejection” (“Future of Cell Therapy”, 2006). The three main objectives given for pursuing stem cell research are obtaining vital scientific information about embryonic development; curing incapacitating ailments and for testing new drugs instead of having to use animals. The scientific techniques for obtaining stem cells could lead to unparalleled advances and even cures for these and other ailments. It has been substantiated from animal research that stem cells can be differentiated into cells that will behave appropriately in their transplanted location. For example, the transplantation of stem cells following treatments for cancer has found much success for many years. There are numerous potential sources. The first is bone marrow stem cells. This type of stem cell is probably the most recognized of the stem cells. It has been used routinely to treat a variety of blood and bone marrow diseases, blood cancers and immune disorders. Leukemia is the most recognized disease that has been treated with a bone marrow transplant. New evidence suggests that bone marrow stem cells may be able to differentiate (the process by which an unspecialized cell acquires the features of a specialized cell) into cells that make up tissues outside of the blood such as liver and muscle (“Stem Cells In Use.” Learn.Genetics). The second type of stem cell is the adult stem cell. An adult stem cell is thought to be an undifferentiated cell, found among differentiated cells in tissues or organs. These cells can renew themselves and can differentiate to become some or all of the major specialized cells types in the tissue and muscle it resides in. The primary function of this type of stem cell is to maintain and repair the tissue in which they reside. Because there are a very limited number of adult stem cells in each tissue coupled with their limited capacity to divide; making generation of large quantities of these cells is difficult. Research is underway to develop methods to grow larger quantities of adult stem cells in cell cultures (Growth of cells in vitro in an artificial medium for research or medical treatment). (Stem Cell Basics: What are adult stem cells?) The third type of stem cell, and the most controversial of the three being discussed, is the embryonic stem cells. Embryonic cells are derived from the embryos that are developed by eggs that have been fertilized “in-vitro” (Latin for "in glass"; in a laboratory dish or test tube; an artificial environment.) and later donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. These stem cells are not harvested from eggs fertilized in a woman’s body. Unlike adult stem cells, embryonic cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent (Having the ability to give rise to all of the various cell types of the body). In addition, embryonic cells can be easily grown in culture (N.I.H) The possibilities of treatment and perhaps cures for some of the most debilitating and deadly diseases is something that this research and stem cells may offer. We have seen successful treatment and cures in bone marrow stem cell transplants for over 50 years. The MAYO clinic routinely performs bone marrow and stem cell transplants, in fact over 1,000 per year. This type of treatment is used to treat cancers such as leukemia and blood diseases such as sickle cell anemia (MAYO). During high-dose radiation therapy treatment, given to kill advanced cancer, normal stem cells found in bone marrow are also destroyed. Without a bone marrow transplant, new blood cells cannot be produced and the patient will die. Injected during transplants procedures, stem cells migrate to a specific location in the bone marrow, where they reestablish the mechanism of blood formation (Cancelas). Part of the controversy centers around the religious segment of the population and mainly with the use of embryonic stem cells and the beginning of life. The Right-To-Life supporters view the use of embryonic material fertilized in vitro to be equal to murder. Even worse, they find reprehensible the pulling of cells from an aborted fetus. The moral dilemma that surrounds the use of aborted fetuses is the idea of abortion itself. The religious segment have made it very clear that they are opposed to legal abortions, in at least most circumstances, and has transferred this ideology to its opposition of embryonic stem cell research. The concept of scientific study of the next stage of development, the fetus, which resulted from an abortion, is unthinkable. This ideology of the administration reflects the minority opinion which opposes abortion and also reflects the majority opinion that is opposed to aborted fetuses of consenting parents being used for experimentation. This reality has no basis in reason. Why would those who claim to be ‘pro-choice’ want to waste the aborted tissue? For that matter, why would pro-lifers want to witness what they believe is a living being tossed away in vain? At least its ‘life’ could have meant something to humanity in a very real way. (Elam-Evans et al). Whatever moral or political position, the fact is, all these fetuses could have served advance scientific and medical knowledge in immeasurable ways. Those who believe they are taking the moral ground when it comes to the ‘unborn’ are perfectly willing to allow those who are breathing to suffer needlessly without hope of the possibility for quicker cure through the efforts of stem cell research. Abortion laws vary state by state but the vast majority allow for abortions to be performed at least through the second trimester, 24 weeks into the pregnancy. This limitation was derived from the neurological point of view, which conforms to our society’s distinctness for the death as the absence of a cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. This same definition must therefore also define life as there are no alternatives to these two options. The presence of the EEG pattern of a fetus can be detected approximately 27 into weeks into the pregnancy. An embryo is referred to as a fetus at about seven to eight weeks following fertilization. At about four to five weeks, embryonic germ cells, about 2 mm long, are developing (Morowitz & Trefil). It has been suggested that only fetuses of stillbirths be used. However, the collecting of embryonic germ cells would be extremely challenging as there is only a small amount of time to collect these cells. There would also be problems using these cells for research as stillbirths might have resulted from a genetic irregularity. Embryonic germ cells can be derived from a five to eight week old fetus, four months prior to having an EEG pattern. (The distinction between embryo and fetus is the end of the 8th week) (Sullivan). More than half of European countries and others around the world such as Japan allow for embryonic stem cell research in various degrees. Australia followed the UK in allowing the use of tissue from aborted fetuses, with the parents’ consent, for scientific experimentation. “Here in Australia we would be allowed to use it [aborted fetus for embryonic research]. There would be no impediment to that” (Robotham & Smith, 2002). According to Health-Day, a daily news service reporting on consumer health, Swiss physicians at the University of Lausanne discovered that a two and a half-inch piece of skin from a fetus, which was aborted at 14 weeks, provided several million grafts that were used to treat burn victims. The study also found that skin cells from an aborted fetus healed burns faster than standard grafts. Patrick Hohlfeld, the prime author of the study said “the use of fetal skin has tremendous potential because taking just one skin graft gives you the potential to treat thousands of people” (Strode). Scientists provide the valid argument that embryos cannot be considered as humans because of their stage of development. Embryonic stem cells are collected from embryos which are four to five days old. In this stage of development, they are called blastocysts and are smaller in diameter than a human hair. When viewed by a microscope, the blastocyst contains fewer than 200 cells and had no features that are recognizable as human nor has the capacity to feel any sensations including pain. An embryo only four or five days old does not yet contain any cells that are dedicated to making up bodily tissues. An embryo this young in a woman’s’ body would not have as yet attached to the uterine wall. Therefore, the viability of the embryo is certainly not assured and is, in fact, unlikely. It can be argued that it could not possess a soul as well, at least not an individual soul. “Since an embryo at this stage has not yet reached the point where it might split in two to become twins, an embryo can’t be thought of as an individual person, some ethicists say, since it may actually become two different people” (Manjoo). Because abortion is legal the ethical question is not in the status of the fetus as it has already been aborted, but rather the immorality of those who would stand in the way of scientific research that would greatly benefit all of humanity. Religion has historically attempted to keep information from the masses and to thwart scientific research. In this age of communication, science will prevail in at least in some parts of the world. Though President Obama has lifted the ban on research the U.S. is well behind the curve of technological and structural systems. This industry will pump money into many economies while the U.S. is catching up. Many people will be presented with the possibility of being treated for horrific diseases in other countries while the U.S. lags behind as its citizens continue to suffer. In the religious community, philosophies are somewhat varied. The Mormon church is neutral regarding stem cell research although it opposes abortion with the possible exceptions of cases of incest, rape or danger to the mother’s health. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations supports research but only if it entails frozen embryos that remain unused from test-tube baby labs. Many Muslims consider that the most convincing moral argument for using embryos is that it could someday combat dread diseases. Representing Protestants, Conservative and Reform Jews and Unitarians amongst others, The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice encourages unimpeded rights to abortion. The coalition believes the medical potential justifies research that employs the test-tube leftovers or aborted fetuses. The Catholic Church instructs its followers that ‘the life of every human being is to be respected’ and it passionately opposes destroying embryos, whether by abortion or research. Eastern Orthodox and evangelical Protestant leaders generally concur. The California Council of Churches, however, “supports a $3 billion state program that involves stem cell harvesting through destruction of cloned embryos” (Ostling). Director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Bioethics, Arthur Caplan, suggests that the absurd reasoning that leads some lawmakers to believe embryos should be afforded similar rights as other citizens when deciding matters of public policy leads to absurd outcomes. According to Caplan, “If you treat embryos as ‘real human lives,’ not only would you have to ban In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and stem cell research but you’d also have to ban sex” (Manjoo). This is because most early-stage pregnancies, described as within a few days after the egg is fertilized, do not progress past that point. Unprotected intercourse produces embryos that are commonly lost without the knowledge of the woman. Up to 40 percent of all embryos are lost even before they can be detected clinically according to the president’s bioethics council. No one, not even the most zealous pro-life proponent laments losing an embryo in this manner. Society has passed no laws protecting four-day-old embryos and physicians do not practice life-saving techniques designed to save lost embryos that result from intercourse. Pro-life groups do not carry signs in protest of the needless ‘death’ of these embryos, even when fertilization clinics throw away frozen embryos. This is because society does not deem embryos to be equal to living individuals even those who, in the case of stem cell research, express that they do. IVF gives infertile people the opportunity to have children. This benefit, the whole of society has determined, outweighs the cost associated with discarding unneeded, frozen embryos. Stem cell research represents a comparable cost benefit scenario. “The cost of destroying embryos that would otherwise have been discarded is outweighed by the chance at treating or curing diseases that afflict tens or hundreds of thousands of people” (Manjoo). Using embryos that otherwise would have been discarded for the purpose of research is morally sound reasoning especially to those that oppose throwing them away. It gives these tiny masses of cells a purpose in ‘life’ instead of simply being wasted. True morality is on the side of stem cell research proponents rather than those of the ‘moral majority’ who opposes it. U.S. Representative Jim Langevin, a socially conservative Democrat from Rhode Island, usually sides with the pro-life Republican faction of Congress regarding abortion laws, was paralyzed from the waist down due to a gun-related accident as a teenager. “To me, being pro-life also means fighting for policies that will eliminate pain and suffering and help people enjoy longer, healthier lives,” Langevin stated in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. “And to me, support for embryonic stem cell research is entirely consistent with that position. What could be more life-affirming than using what otherwise would be discarded to save, extend, and improve countless lives?” (Manjoo). Stem cells can indeed save, extend and improve countless lives as countless instances attest. In 2009, researchers from the Departments of Anatomy and Physiology and Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology at the College of Veterinary Medicine in Kansas State University in Kansas, reported in the February edition of the journal (Ganta). Per Ganta and his colleagues these findings suggest that unmodified human UCMS (Umbilical Cord Matrix Stem) cells could be used for targeted cytotherapy for breast cancer. This research was further studied and showed that these cells will also reduce metastatic lung cancer in mice as well. (Rachakatla). Continued stem cell research may provide very beneficial for the use of this type cell in patients with breast cancer. With government funding, clinical trials could be started. Lou Gehrig’s disease, also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS affects 30,000 Americans. ALS causes the nerve cells in certain portion of the brain and spinal cord to gradually die. Eventually these patients lose the ability to move their limbs and the muscles needed to move, eat, speak and breathe. In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration approved a clinic trial of a new stem cell treatment for ALS. Patients will receive injections of the spinal cord derived neural stem cells along the spinal cord. Phase I got underway in 2010 and each patient will be evaluated regularly post-surgery and the clinical trial results will be reviewed in 24 months. (Feldman) Religious zealots are again attempting to slow scientific advancement by advocating dogma over science and reason. Proponents of abortion rights and stem cell research recognize that if the moral status of embryos and fetuses is exclusively a religious matter, it should be kept in the private dominion of faith, not a matter of political debate. The moral majority is morally bankrupt on this issue. Other countries are much further advanced in this science and therefore reap the financial benefits. However, despite the human health and economic advantages of embryonic stem cell research, the ‘moralists’ of the right wing refuse to give up their flawed reasoning. This is likely the result of refusing to become educated on the issue while employing a neutral, unbiased frame of mind. These are the same people, no doubt, who think that the theory of evolution is a vast liberal conspiracy designed to undermine religion and is a tool of ‘the devil.’ Inevitably, stem cell research will be commonplace and hopefully sooner than later but until then many people will continue to suffer with debilitating diseases and paralysis. Where is the morality in that? Who are these people that consider the life of a living human being less important than a four or five day-old embryo? It’s easy for these people to cling to false morals unless it affects them or their family directly. Advocates of stem cell research should do a better job of educating opponents so that government’s funds can be allocated to further this new science. If we, as a country can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on unnecessary wars that benefits no one, we can spend much less on research that will benefit us all. Works Cited Elam-Evans, Laurie D.; Strauss, Lilo T.; Herndon, Joy; Parker, Wilda Y.; Whitehead, Sara; & Berg, Cynthia J. “Abortion Surveillance – United States.” 13 November 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease Control. Feldman, Dr. Eva. Stem Cell Trial. 1 March 2011. 26 April 2011 . Manjoo, Farhad. “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the Stem Cell Debate.” 8 June 2005. Salon.com. 26 April 2011 Morowitz, H. J. & Trefil, J. S. The Facts of Life: Science and the Abortion Controversy. 1992 New York: Oxford University Press. N.I.H. Stem Cell Basics: What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells? . 20 January 2011. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health. 23 April 2011 . Ostling, Richard N. “A Balance of Benefits in Stem Cell Debate: Divisions Among Religious Groups Suggest Theological Thicket in Life-or-Life Questions.” 4 June 2005 p. B09 Washington Post. Rachakatla, Raja shekar. The FASEB Journal. 21 March 2007. 25 April 2011 . Robotham, Julie & Smith, Deborah. “Abortions Set to Fuel Stem Cell Research.” 5 August 2002. Fairfax Digital The Sydney Morning Herald. 24 April 2011 Stem Cell Basics: What are adult stem cells? . Ed. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 5 August 2010. 24 April 2011 . "Stem Cells In Use." Learn.Genetics . 24 January 2011. University Of Utah. 23 April 2011 . Strode, Tom. “Life Digest: New Stem Cell Research Encouraging but Problematic; Researchers Find New Use for Aborted Babies.” 5 August 2002. Baptist Press News. 23 April 2011 Sullivan, Patricia. “Frequently Asked Questions: Do Stem Cells Come From Aborted Fetuses?” 17 September 2004. International Society for Stem Cell Research “Cell Therapy Questions “ 2006 Michigan Citizens For Stem Cell Research & Cures Southfield Michigan 26 April 2011 Read More