Debrief: The Embryonic Stem Cell Debate
(CBS)
First off, let's talk about what embryonic stem cell research entails. An embryo is "a clump of cells that would fit barely on the head of a pin," as Susan L. Solomon, CEO of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, says. The embryos are created in a lab through artificial insemination of an egg, usually for the purposes of in vitro fertilization. If this pre-implantation embryo is not used for fertilization, it can be used to create a stem cell "line." This takes place within six days of insemination.
What researches then have is a clump of perhaps 200 cells that have split multiple times since day one, says Dr. Lorenz Studer, a stem-cell biologist with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Perhaps ten of those cells are used to create a stem cell line, which then – and this is crucial – can exist, in theory, forever, since the cells continue to split in perpetuity. You might remember back in 2001, President Bush banned federal funding for research into stem cell lines, but he allowed research to continue on the 21 lines that had been created before his decision. Since the lines could continue to create stem cells forever, the argument went, there was not a need for new lines to be created from embryos.
The problem, says Studer, is that every time cell divides, "there is a chance it accumulates defects – it's not always a perfect copy of itself." So the 21 lines are eventually of less and less use. In addition, the lines made before 2001 were not created with the benefit of the advances of the last few years, and are not as well-designed for laboratory use as more recent lines. In addition, the 21 lines did not make for a very diverse pool of options for scientists to choose from.
Read More On The Stem Cell Issue:
- Obama Ends Stem Cell Research Ban
- Polling Shows Support For Stem Cell Research
- Republicans Rally Against Obama On Stem Cells
(CBS)
And while scientists are lauding the president's action today, many still feel that the government is standing in the way of the full benefits of stem cell research. That's because of something called the Dickey-Wicker amendment, which was first introduced in 1996 and is reintroduced every year. Dickey-Wicker makes it illegal to use federal funds for research "in which human embryos are created, destroyed, discarded, or knowingly be subjected to risk of injury or death greater than allowed for research on fetuses in utero."
In other words, even though federal funding can now go to the study of existing stem cell lines, government-funded scientists cannot create new lines, because they cannot create or destroy embryos.
"We are very much opposed to Dickey-Wicker, and feel very strongly that it needs to be removed," said Sean Tipton of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
Tipton argues that scientists are not sufficiently knowledgeable about embryos and that removing Dickey-Wicker could lead to advances in success rates for in-vitro fertilization and advances in dealing with birth defects and diagnosing genetic diseases. And Solomon says new lines above and beyond the 1,000 in existence are needed for the purposes of better drug screening and creating better models for fighting disease. To keep scientists from creating new lines with fegeral money, she says, is akin to making them "run a one-legged potato sack race" while people are dying from potentially-treatable diseases.
Because of the potential uproar inherent in not reintroducing Dickey-Wicker – it's part of the appropriations bill each year – it is unlikely that Congress will elect to abandon the amendment. The president, notably, has not taken a position on the issue – though he did today say members of Congress "are still going to have some work to do" on the stem cell issue, which could be read as a subtle signal that he would not oppose getting rid of it. It could also mean, however, that the president simply wants his action today codified so it cannot be overturned in the future.
There have also been breakthroughs with adult stem cells, which can theoretically be transformed into embryonic form – something embryonic stem-cell research opponents say means there is no longer a need to harvest stem cells from embryos. But while the research is promising, embryonic stem cell research backers like Solomon say the adult cells are not an adequate substitute, and that embryonic stem cells are "absolutely the gold standard" for research purposes.
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 294 Comments
- For GOP, scandals could be an electoral plus - or minus 90 Comments
- Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised? 380 Comments
- FBI seeks anonymous source behind Menendez allegations
- Ousted IRS chief: "I did not mislead" the American people 256 Comments
- Why Obama should worry that current scandals might impact 2016 226 Comments
- Obama: I didn't know about IRS report 613 Comments
- Immigration deal reached in House
Preventing embryonic stem cells from creating a human being is not murder. Sure it has the potential to create a human being, but so does a sperm and egg cell within proximity. However, neither ARE a human being.
Preventing the creation of a human and killing a human are two very different things.
thank you
pat podrasky
Praise Him for the love He has shown us through our Lord Jesus Christ.
If women did not believe that the thing growing inside them was a human fetus that would eventually grow to become a human being, then they would go to an oncologist, not an abortionist.
Logically speaking.
Posted by Sbachm
They FORCE you to pay for wars, they FORCE you depending on the state to pay for executions. Can they FORCE you to pay taxes? Yes. Those taxes fund wars where people are MURDERED legally, those taxes, again depending on the state, are used to MURDER people on death row.
Posted by debinok1 at 2:55 PM : Mar 9, 2009
That doesn't make doing it right.
The latter point is just a question of fact, not values. Clearly, scientists who push for research with embryonic stem cells do so because they believe it to be more effective, not because they simply like to destroy embryos. It's wonderful that research with adult stem cells shows promise, but if it were equally effective, there would be no issue. No researcher would deliberately use a technique that was less effective. As for the moral question, I believe that it totally immoral to block efforts to save lives from diseases like Parkinson's that would use embryos that are already destined to be discarded.
Several comments here have questioned how anyone could sacrifice unborn babies for medical research. My question is the opposite: how could anyone oppose saving lives by using embryos that will never develop? It's sad how many people are willing to sacrifice others' lives in order to stop medical research that would not prevent a SINGLE human birth. A logically consistent position would be to ban ONLY embryonic stem cell research using embryos created just for the purpose of research. Even a ban on IVF treatment (which creates unused embryos) would be logically consistent, although (I believe) unfair to infertile couples desperately trying to have children. The Bush doctrine, however, hurt potentially life-saving medical research in order to keep doomed embryos from giving some meaning to their sacrifice.
1. True fault line: The point of when the fertilized egg is a human person...
2. True fault line: Are we "playing God" when we begin cloning at any stage...
3. The outcome of the egg if not used for stem cell research...
4. When does the breathe of life, the spirit and soul become one with a body....that only God Himself can know...yet something we should still seek Him out to be wise in how we proceed...
During therapeutic cloning of cells in order to make usable cell tissues of various forms, the egg is "fertilized' with a skin cell nucleus of the person needing the tissue. The actual nucleus of the donor egg is removed before "fertilization". Then the donor egg, now void of its own DNA, is implanted with the nucleus of the skin donor cell. So now the donor egg contains the DNA of the skin cell donor. So one could argue that one is not in fact destroying the embryo that, holding the skin cell donor DNA, saying its you, would eventually turn into another you. So in theory you are not destroying someone else's life necessarily, but in essence destroying yourself aka your clone. Interesting way to look at it I think...maybe there is a flaw in my theory due to some factor I am not aware of or my understanding of the process...please let me know.
I wonder why embryonic stem cells are considered the "gold standard"...because there has been more research done using them and therefore more reliable or readily available or because there is scientific bases for this conclusion?
My thoughts...We must be careful not to create a society in which we have decided we do not need God...for He calls us by name...
Whatever has happened up to now is not relevant, we do not want a slaughter house industry set up for human embryos. I do not understand anyone who would think this is a good thing to get involved with.
An embryo is not merely a bunch of cells, but something that upon its immediately upon coming into existence, begins forming into a human baby. If left in its natural environment, this "bunch of cell" in only a few weeks starts growing a head, body, eyes, hands, feet.
I happen to believe a embryo is a human being who is being killed to have its stem cells harvested. But even if that's not your belief, how can you logically weigh the facts and come to the conclusion that this is good activity for the government to get involved with?