Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the US government fund new lines of embryonic stem cells?
Results so far:
| Yes | 59% | 51 votes | Total: 86 votes | |
| No | 41% | 35 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe ethical decision to fund new lines of embryonic stem cells should not be taken lightly. Nor should any decision that will engender such deep seated emotions that rock differing social faction's sense of morality. A regulatory framework of use should be designed and instituted. We must look deeply at current knowledge to search the "rightness" of growing and utilizing new sources of stem cells for research and not have an immediate knee jerk reaction.
Adult somatic cell treatments have been used for years in therapies for leukemia as in bone marrow transplants. However, adult stem cells have a limited capacity to become other than what they are. Diseases that may be present, but undetected in the adult donor can be passed on. Not long ago, a teenage boy who was given a second chance at life by a bone marrow transplant gained less than two years of bright outlook when an undetected cancer from the donor took his life.
Viable life is not being destroyed in order to perform research. Only embryonic stem cells taken from embryos of 50 to 150 cells not yet differentiated into various tissues have shown the promise that pioneer researchers are looking for. These are embryos that would have been destroyed anyway. To waste this resource is unconscionable. To say that this is the beginning step to cloning human beings is simplistic, ignorant and not a viable argument. It is the illogical equivalent of deciding that drunk drivers might kill people so outlaw car keys.
New research is being done in the field of single cell biopsy that will not decimate an embryo in order to retrieve the stem cells. But, without funding, literal breaking of eggs to make an omelet, such promising research as this and other techniques will be lost.
Under the current law, the only cell cultures allowed to be tested are those already being used prior to the Bush administration. These cultures are mixed with mouse DNA and need to be renewed to continue their astounding promise not simply to manage diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's and cancers, but heal them. In essence, they are running out.
Life is precious, but so also is the quality of it. Burn and other traumatic injury victims can find pain and cosmetic relief from severe disfigurement and join society again. Transplants from embryonic sourced organs do not need the high dose, expensive anti-rejection drugs currently used. To deny funding for scientific research in these fields is a far greater moral failure. It is a demonstration of the unthinking, empathy starved hardness of our society. It should weigh as rocks in the pockets of a drowning man.
On a logical side, if we do not fund this research which will be done in other countries, we will lose a medical edge in the world. We will not be able to control the framework, the costs and the quality of therapies that are being tested now in other nations. We will, when it is finally allowed be light years behind in being able to bring care to our own people.
Consider both sides of such a sensitive subject. If a moral feeling is truth, it will stand up to scrutiny. Do not fear to examine your current world outlook and allow it to evolve. Look fully into actual knowledge and put aside immediate reactions for the logical conclusion. Do not make a decision based on fear of fire and brimstone, make a decision based on love and compassion. Allow government funding for ethical, well thought out, embryonic stem cell research.
Learn more about this author, Charlotte Mielziner.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
There is a great deal of controversy surrounding embryonic stem cells, and a good deal of the controversy stems from a lack of knowledge about the subject.
People claim that only embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are "pluripotent," or have the ability to change into cells from all three "germ layers" within the body. In contrast, they claim that adult stem cells (ASCs) are not pluripotent, or to a lesser degree.
People also equate government funding of new lines of stem cells to the ability for researchers to test ESC therapies using existing stem cell lines.
Unfortunately, both of these claims are false.
To help clarify some of the confusion, let's review some definitions. Adult stem cells would be more correctly known as "non-embryonic" stem cells, meaning they are not destructively harvested from an embryo. For example, cord blood stem cells (harvested from the umbilical cord of a newborn baby) are considered to be adult stem cells. Any stem cells which are derived from other-than-embryonic sources are called adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are just as pluripotent as embryonic stem cells. They can change into cells from any of the three germ layers within the body, which means that adult stem cells can become any cell within the body. What's more, adult stem cells currently (meaning today) effectively treat over 70 diseases and conditions.
Embryonic stem cells, as the name suggests, are harvested from a developing embryo. Unfortunately, the process of harvesting stem cells from an embryo is always destructive to the embryo. What's more, embryonic stem cells have not treated a single disease effectively.
"Well, that's just because the government has banned embryonic stem cell testing!" This statement is another common misconception. The government, as implied by the title of this article, had only withheld federal funding from new lines of embryonic stem cells, meaning federal funding would not be given to test embryonic stem cells derived from newly aborted fetuses. Existing ESCs exist in other places, such as in embryos frozen by women hoping to implant them someday in in-vitro fertilization procedures. Testing against existing lines of EBCs such as these has continually received federal funding, and testing has been ongoing. In fact, existing lines of ESCs have been extensively tested by both government and private sector scientists, and they have yet to produce a single positive breakthrough.
"But with just a little more money (read: a lot more money) and a little more time (read: we really don't know how long it might take), I'm sure we will find a cure." But is the goal worth the price? Is the saving of one human life worth the destruction of another? Who are we to say? Consider this. We can harvest adult stem cells as often as we want without any destruction of life. We can currently treat over 70 diseases and conditions using adult stem cells. In fact, within the past week, scientists have been able to use adult stem cells to clone the nerve cells within the brain destroyed by Parkinson's disease, and have shown evidence that a patient is effectively being treated for Parkinson's disease using his own stem cells. Adult stem cells continue to show real promise. In contrast, despite the federally-funded extensive testing which has already taken place alongside the work done with adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells have not shown any promise whatsoever, and have not been able to effectively treat any disease. You also must destroy a human life to harvest them as well.
However, despite the clear evidence to the contrary, President Obama lifted the funding ban which was previously in place prohibiting federal funds from supporting research into new lines of embryonic stem cells, lifting one of two barriers to full-scale embryo production for the sole purpose of destruction of those embryos for testing. This first ban, the ban on federal funding of new lines of embryonic stem cells, was the easier of the two to remove. The second ban, the one which will be more difficult to lift, is called the Dickey-Wicker amendment. It has been reaffirmed by Congress every year since 1996. This amendment bans federal funds from being spent on creating embryos. But this amendment is another "rider," or an amendment which must be added on to another bill. With the new administration, and the new philosophy on the sanctity of human life, this amendment may also find itself on the chopping block.
If that amendment fails to be reaffirmed, the government will have effectively opened the doors for federal funding for both the creation and destruction of human life. Scientists who study embryonic stem cells are desperate for federal funding for this research, because their private donors have all pulled their funding in favor of adult stem cells. Adult stem cells continually show progress and further potential, without the "ethical quagmire" of the destruction of human life in the process.
In this time of economic uncertainty, if you're going to gamble your money, do you bet on the proven performer, or do you throw all your money on the (very) long shot? Embryonic stem cells are not only past their prime, they never had a prime. They are not mainstream, and they are not primetime. Federal dollars should not go towards new lines of embryonic stem cells.
Learn more about this author, Bill Stone.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Politics, News & Issues (Other)
- Will the reforms being considered in Congress improve health care in the United States?
- Should Illinois change its Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act to make a moment of silence at the start of the school day a voluntary act, rather than a requirement?
- Was the decision to end Rush Limbaugh's attempt to become an NFL owner the right move?
- Should the federal government give assistance to American auto makers?
- Has Barack Obama's first 100 days pleased you or not?
- Is the worst of the recession behind us?
