Potential Therapeutic Advantages of Stem Cell Research - Term Paper Example

Stem Cell Legislation, How the U.S. Compares The United s, along with several other countries, plays a vital role studying the many medical applications and potential therapeutic advantages of stem cell research. Scientists have conclusively proven that embryonic stem cells have the ability to genetically restore defective bodily tissues and regenerate organs. Stem cell treatments has the incredible capability of provide ground-breaking cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and kidney disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, macular degeneration and numerous other kinds of medical conditions. Even more amazingly, stem cells have also shown a tremendous potential to repair and regenerate injured spinal cords allowing paralyzed persons to regain bodily movements. The possibilities of stem cell research are endless including appreciably extending life expectancy. Unfortunately politicians and some of their constituents are not scientifically literate, preferring misguided religious prejudices to reason. Laws enacted during Republican administrations since the discovery of this science has acted to retard research but Democratic administrations have promoted this dynamic medical advancement. The future of stem cell research depends, evidently, on which political party occupies the White House. Scientists developed in vitro fertilization (IVF) resulting in the first “test tube baby” being born in 1978. This procedure made the research of human embryos possible. In 1981, stem cell research was born when scientists isolated the embryonic cells of mouse embryos, a significant achievement. However, President Reagan’s administration was “morally opposed” to this new medical advancement and blocked its advancement. Those against this science claimed it was “playing God” whatever that is supposed to mean. After Reagan contracted Alzheimer’s, Nancy Reagan publically supported the federal funding of stem cell research. The government ban continued under the Bush (Sr.) administration but President Clinton lifted it in 1994. Later that same year, Republicans won the majority of seats in both houses of Congress and in 1996 passed the Dickey Amendment, legislation that, in essence, banned stem cell research by ending federal funding for “the creation of embryos for research purposes as well as research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero.” (Torrisi, 2007) U.S. scientists successfully isolated and grew stem cells in 1998 which put the issue back in the public forum. According to the National Institute of Health (NIH), this advancement was “compelling and worthy of pursuit in accordance with appropriate ethical standards” (Torrisi, 2007) and tried to circumvent the Dickey Amendment by enabling this research. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s position was the Amendment did not pertain to stem cell research. Once that cell has been isolated from the fetus; it no longer fits the legal description of an embryo. In 2000, the NIH stated that government money for stem cell research would be allowed but only if “the cells were derived (without federal funds) from human embryos that were created for the purposes of fertility treatment and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.” (Torrisi, 2007) This meant that researchers from privately-funded labs could harvest stem cells from embryos but federally-funded researchers could not. They could, however, accept stem cells from privately-funded researchers. This compromise, of sorts, insured no federal funds would be used to destroy embryos. The President following Clinton instituted the “Bush Compromise” in 2001 which ended all federal funding of stem cell research except for the 60 stem cell lines already in use. In response to this harsh stance, Congress passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. The law would have included stem cells collected from excess embryos produced in IVF labs to be eligible for funding but in 2006 Bush vetoed the legislation even though he knew most of these embryos would end up in the trash container instead of being used for beneficial medical research. His justification was the Act would “force taxpayers to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos.” (Torrisi, 2007) That was not true but science would take a backseat to ideology until the Obama administration when the President signed an executive order allowing federal funding of stem cell research in early 2009. Canada passed a law in 2006 that allows research on surplus embryos but does not allow human embryos to be created for purposes of research. The stem cell industry in Mexico is flourishing because the government has not passed any regulations limiting research. Patients from other countries, including the U.S., who suffer from paralysis, cerebral palsy, autism and other conditions, are treated with stem cells by Mexican doctors. Japan authorized its scientists to perform stem cell studies for use as for therapeutic functions in 2004. In 2007, a collaboration of Japanese and American scientists found that skin cells could be manipulated to act like embryonic stem cells. “Though still in the early experimental phase, some believe that this procedure could help diffuse the debate over the destruction of embryos by providing a viable alternative to using embryonic stem cell lines.” (Ralston, 2008). The country of Singapore, boasting more than 40 stem cell research labs, is commonly referred to as “Asia’s stem cell center.” The tiny nation off the coast of southern Malaysia has been vigorously recruiting top scientists around the world as part of a concentrated effort to become a leader in biomedical research. The South Korean government actively promotes therapeutic stem cell research (Somatic cell nuclear transfer method) but bans research for reproductive cloning. The storing of stem cells is a thriving industry in India. Using stem cells for bone marrow transplants has been approved by the government as has the therapeutic cloning of stem cells. Reproductive cloning is not lawful in India. The same apply in Belgium, a country that has embraced the new science. “Belgium is widely recognized by the international scientific community as an enthusiast of stem cell research, and Belgian scientists successfully extracted stem cell lines from cloned embryos in 2005.” (Ralston, 2008). The United Kingdom is the leading country in Europe regarding biomedical research mainly due to its early start in this field. “Scottish scientist Ian Wilmut and his team created the worlds first successfully cloned animal, Dolly the sheep, in Scotland in 1996.” (Ralston, 2008). The UK was third in the world to permit the cloning and research of human stem cells in 2004 and in 2006 Parliament formally allowed scientists to perform experiments using animal-human hybrid embryos. Swedish law permits therapeutic cloning. The country enjoys both political and public support of the biomedical industry and stem cell research. In 2002, the government approved the establishment of the second stem cell depository in Europe. In 2006, Spain legalized therapeutic cloning. It became the fourth nation in Europe to do so following Belgium, Sweden and the UK. Spain also has three research facilities to study regenerative medicine and in 2004 established Europe’s third stem cell depository. (Ralston, 2008). The French government passed legislation in 2004 that allowed for the import of surplus IVF embryos for research purposes. In 2006, this law was expanded which allowed scientists to create stem cell lines using excess embryos. Nightmarish memories of Nazi atrocities involving inhumane medical experiments still haunt the citizens of Germany which has acted to slow stem cell research in that country. Creating stem cells is outlawed. In 2008, however, German law allowed specific types of imported stem cells to be used for research. Italy severely limits stem cell research. The government passed a law in 2004 prohibiting all egg or sperm donations in addition to freezing embryos. However, the Italian regulations do not expressly prevent scientists from experimenting with existing imported stem cells. Israel has allowed therapeutic cloning since 1999. “Israeli scientists have made significant breakthroughs in stem cell research, including the first extraction of stem cells from blood in the 1960s.” (Ralston, 2008). Continuing experimentation in Israel concentrates on regenerative medicine and treatment of diseases. Since 2002, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been involved in stem cell research when the government decided to make this new technology “the new oil of Saudi Arabia.” Religious officials in Saudi, crucial to the decision making process in that dessert nation, issued a legal decree in 2003 sanctioning embryo use for research purposes. The first African stem cell depository was built in 2004 by the country of South Africa. In 2003, the government passed laws banning reproductive cloning but allowing therapeutic cloning. “In 2002, when South Africas Mark Shuttleworth became the first African to visit the international space station, he conducted experiments designed by South African researchers to study the development of stem cells in zero-gravity conditions.” (Ralston, 2008). Brazil passed legislation in 2005 permitting stem cell research but the Catholic Church in Brazil took the law to court. Brazil’s Supreme Court sided with the government in 2008 ruling that stem cell research was lawful. (Ralston, 2008). Due to ideological and political reasons, the U.S. is lagging far behind many other nations in this new and important biomedical technology. This emerging industry will likely be very profitable for the nations that pursue it vigorously and remain on the cutting edge. Much like the renewable energy market, the U.S. is falling behind, not due to a lack of equipment or scientific skills, but because of a lack of will. Does the U.S. allow other countries the economic benefits of stem cell research? Does the nation not have concern for people who are dying from curable diseases and crippled from accidents? If history is a dependable predictor, the answer depends on whether a Democrat or Republican occupies the White House. References Ralston, Michelle. (July 17, 2008). “Stem Cell Research Around the World.” Pew Research Center Retrieved April 7, 2012 from Torrisi, Carloine. (2007). Journal of Health & Biomedical Law, Vol. 111 No. 1 pgs. 143-162 Journal of Health & Biomedical Law Retrieved April 7, 2012 from Read More