Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 1
Life Now, Or Life Later? :The Promise of Stem Cells
By
Douglas Affeldt
Shannon Jodoin
Allen MacDonald
Ashley Smith
WRA 110, Sec. 4
Michigan State University
April 12th 2007
Word Count: 2,896
Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 2
Life Now, Or Life Later?:The Promise of Stem Cells
The scientific process of experimentation, repetition, discussion,
review, and approval is a notoriously slow one—and in the case of
promising new medical therapies with the potential to ease great
suffering, this process can be and often is a frustrating one,
particularly when it is coupled with questions of morality, religion,
politics, and community standards. (Shoemaker 104)
The process of which Leigh Shoemaker, who holds masters in philosophy
and information science, speaks is that of stem cell research. It is a process
engulfed in controversy, for there is no clear answer of how to proceed. Many
promises have been made by scientists about the use of stem cells as medical
treatments, yet limited tangible results have been produced. However, as
Shoemaker goes on to point out, “important work is being done—regardless of
whether current generations will benefit from its conclusions —and this work
must be both encouraged and allowed to continue. And that is the promise of
stem cells kept” (104).
Despite ethical arguments against moving forward with human embryonic
stem cell research, the potential for the improvement of human life and society is
much too great to be overlooked. Researchers have procured embryonic stem
cells for research that may produce cures for diseases. The use of these
embryonic stem cells, as well as non-controversial alternatives such as adult and
Fig. 1. Deriving Stem Cells. 2003. From Science In Africa. 4 April 2007 <http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za>.
Embryonic stem cells are the result of removing the
inner cell mass from a blastocyst.
Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 3
umbilical cord blood stem cells, must be explored for the betterment of all
mankind.
The debate surrounding stem cell research is no secret, yet many are
unclear how the debate came to light. Human embryonic stem cells were first
researched in 1998, by John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University, who was
searching for a better way to understand Down’s syndrome (Easterbrook par. 1).
That same year, James Thompson of the University of Wisconsin performed
similar experiments; both men were able to separate stem cells from human
embryos and induce the embryos to multiply (par. 2-3). Little did these men
know at the time, but their actions would throw the nation into political havoc,
deeply dividing the country based on interpretations of one of America’s
inalienable rights: the right to life.
Human embryonic stem cells are derived in two ways: the first is through
the destruction of donated in-vitro fertilization embryos-- the process generates
excess embryos which would
otherwise be discarded (Ryan
297). These embryos are
classified as being in the
blastocyst phase (See Fig. 1.),
being four or five days old, and
contain an inner cell mass which
is harvested and then cultured to
produce useable stem cells
Fig. 2. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. From National Institutes of Health. 4 April 2007 <http://stemcells.nih.gov/>.
Theoretically, a patient would be injected with stem cells which
have been created by initially replacing the nucleus of the donor
egg cell with a nucleus from one of the patient’s body cells.
Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 4
(“Stem Cell Basics” sec. 3). Embryonic stem cells can also be derived from
primordial germ cells (pre-gametes) found in fetuses which are generally
obtained through abortions. To maximize compatibility of stem cell treatments,
human embryonic stem cells can be tailored through the process of somatic cell
nuclear transfer (See Fig. 2.). This is a process in which the nucleus of an egg
cell is replaced with the nucleus of a would-be patient’s cell, thus creating cells
compatible with the patient’s DNA. It is these processes which are at the heart of
the research debate, for it is through the destruction of an egg or an embryo that
scientists are able to harvest potential treatments for the living. This view is
eloquently described
by Michael Novak,
alluding to philosopher
Immanuel Kant --
human life should not be
violated “as means for
even the noblest of ends”
(par. 5).
The possibilities of the stem cell research are undeniable, yet what the
process entails is slightly more complex. According to the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), human embryonic stem cells are characterized by their “remarkable
potential to develop into many different cell types in the body” (“Stem Cell Basics”
sec.1). In addition to this significant factor, embryonic stem cells have the ability
to replicate exponentially (“Stem Cell Basics” sec.1). It is these defining
Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 5
properties which have spurred so much hope among citizens—it appears stem
cells may be the miracle treatment which can cure the ailing and heal their loved
ones. Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan describes the possibilities: “In addition to potentially
treating a range of diseases, the application of stem cells could also reduce the
need for organ transplants and, when stem cells are created using somatic cell
nuclear transfer, treating patients with stem cells eliminates the need for a
lifetime regimen of immunosuppressants,” or drugs that prevent the body’s
immune system from activation (292).
The controversy of embryonic stem cells has engulfed Washington, D.C.
— politicians’ stance on this issue does not necessarily have any correlation with
individual or parties’ traditional values. In 2001, President George W. Bush
announced he supports government funding only for existing stem cell lines,
where the “life and death decision has already been made” (Berger par. 1). This
decision had debilitating effects on embryonic stem cell research; with limited
functional stem cell lines in existence and no government funding to come, many
scientists relocated to Britain, where stem cell research has been approved
(Henderson and Kay 75). The alternative to relocation has been to seek funding
in the private sector. Some organizations which have supported stem cell
research privately include large corporations involved in biotechnological
research, various universities around the country, and non-profit establishments
whose sole purpose is to provide funding, such as the Stem Cell Research
Foundation (Donohue par. 6; “About SCRF” par. 3).
Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 6
Still, there are those that feel embryonic stem cell research should not be
allowed to proceed. There is essentially one reason why certain groups and
individuals feel that allowing embryonic stem cell research to continue should not
occur, which is ethics. The most common issue that society has with embryonic
stem cell research is that it involves the destruction of a live embryo or an egg
cell which has the potential to foster life. People are not against embryonic stem
cell research because they do not want to see diseases cured. Cardinal Egan of
the Catholic Church argues, “We are 100 percent in favor of any medical
research that doesn't jeopardize the life of an innocent human being” (Parry par.
8). One thousand Catholics stood behind Cardinal Egan as he spoke out against
embryonic stem cell research (par. 2).
The main argument that the opposition has to embryonic stem cell
research is that it is morally unacceptable, yet this position is taken to varying
degrees. John Donohue, an associate editor for America, believes that
“[Biologists] might not agree on the definition of life, but they would agree that if
this embryo were to nest in a womb, it would normally grow into a baby ready for
birth” (par. 4). This is where the thin line is drawn-- the definition of life. The
whole argument of embryonic stem cell research revolves around this idea. In
“The Stem Cell Debate” written by Donna Walter, law professor Sandra Johnson
is paraphrased. According to Johnson, the period at which it is generally agreed
embryos obtain some level of intrinsic value is somewhere between conception
and birth (par. 37). Whether or not one opposes human embryonic stem cell
research directly correlates to the subjective point at which one believes this
Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 7
intrinsic life value begins. It is the right of all people to have their own set of
values. Therefore, no matter how advanced embryonic stem cell research gets,
there will still be critics.
The debate over stem cell research is not a simple question of whether or
not one is pro-life. Although many arguments against stem cell research overlap
with those of the abortion debate, many reason that allowing research on fetuses
produced through abortion would encourage more abortions to take place (Ryan
297). This logic is refuted by researchers who claim “the embryonic research will
not increase abortions, but will provide scientists with a greater understanding of
various diseases,” such as Parkinson’s disease (“NIH” par.7).
Considering this, some who identify with conservative values can still see
the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells. One such person is Republican
Senator Orrin Hatch, who is outspoken against abortion, yet feels “life starts in
the womb, ‘not in a petri dish’” (Donohue par. 1). This logic exhibits that the
ideals of stem cell research do nearly parallel the ideals of abortion, yet there is
one distinct difference. The abortion debate considers the mother’s rights in
relation to her fetus, while the stem cell debate takes into account the rights and
status of the undeveloped fetus alone (Ryan 297). Thus, even if one’s ideals are
against abortion, one can still recognize and favor the benefits of stem cell
research.
However, just because some are against embryonic stem cell research,
does not mean they are against stem cell research altogether. Many who
oppose the destruction of embryos completely stand behind adult stem cell
Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 8
research, which reveals the lack of ethical boundaries in the use of adult stem
cells. This alternative to embryonic stem cells is productive, as noted by
Donohue, “research on adult stem cells has produced some therapeutic
experiments that do work” (par. 7). Increased research on adult stem cells has
occurred and produced results; the New England Journal of Medicine “reported
a study that found that adult stem cells from patients’ own bone marrow has
improved those patients’ cardiac function after a heart attack” (par. 7). If
scientists can find cures through adult stem cells, albeit possibly a more difficult
path, those against embryonic stem cells wonder why the moral obstacles cannot
be avoided altogether?
These positive results from alternative forms of stem cell research may be
due to the restraints on embryonic stem cell research. In order to avoid the
controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research, scientists seem to be
deliberately taking less productive approaches, working with the more difficult
and less malleable adult and cord blood stem cells. Massive amounts of time
and money are being spent to find alternatives that will offer lesser, or at most
the same, benefits as embryonic stem cells (Shoemaker 102). Adult stem cells
are found in the human body and are extracted from many different organs, such
as the heart, the brain, and the lungs (“Stem Cell Basics” sec. 4). Scientists point
out that the main problem with adult stem cells is that they are limited to certain
tissues in their transforming capabilities, while embryonic stem cells can
transform into any tissue. Because of this, adult stem cells cannot produce as
many different cell types as embryonic stem cells (Weiss 2).
Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 9
In addition to their work on adult stem cells, scientists have reached
positive results using umbilical cord stem cells. Doctors take the blood after the
birth of the child and send it to a blood bank to be frozen for future use
(“Collecting” sec. 5). These stem cells are able to transform themselves into a
variety of different cell types in the body and do not cause any harm to the donor
mother or child. Keone Penn, a sufferer of sickle cell anemia, was injected with
donated stem cells from umbilical cord blood (Marin 80). Despite the uncertainty
surrounding the experimental treatment, the young Penn saw results which gave
him the opportunity to live a longer, more fulfilling life, such as playing basketball
like his peers (81). Penn, however, is not cured of all ailments; “he has arthritis,
walks with a limp, and will need joint replacement in his hips and knee,” all of
which are the result of his umbilical cord stem cell transplant (81). Thus, at first
umbilical cord blood and adult stem cells appear to be decent replacements for
human embryonic stem cells, but it seems a lot of time and money is being
fruitlessly invested to get them to work as quickly and as well as their embryonic
counterparts.
Much of the moral argument against human embryonic stem cell research
involves aversion to the thought of harming one human being to benefit another.
However, distaste for this prospect must not prevent scientific progress. Not all
people consider these embryos to have a human status at this point in their
development. The embryos which scientists research on are “no larger than the
dot at the end of this sentence” (Donohue par. 3). Although these cells have the
ability to grow into a human form, in the state that they are extracted there exists
Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 10
no thought, no feeling, and no ability to continue existence independently. Also,
as Ryan eloquently states, “We never have and are unlikely ever to grant full
citizenship and personhood to the fertilized egg or contingent life before viability”
(298). Some will still consider this cell cluster human and continue to oppose
stem cell research. Yet, if there exist embryos which will be destroyed, should
the inevitable destruction of these embryos not be used for some good?
Creating an embryo simply for research is hard for many with strong moral
backgrounds to justify, yet it is hard to argue with the point, “embryos that are no
longer needed and would otherwise be discarded could be used for research to
advance knowledge in reproduction and benefit humankind generally” (297).
Opposition to this argument—believing one should not gain from another’s loss—
would thus have to include all related procedures, such as the widely-accepted
practice of posthumous organ donation.
There are many diseases that may be treated or even cured by
researching embryonic stem cells. These include “Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
diseases, diabetes, heart disease, spinal cord injury, and metabolic disease in
young children” (292). For example, those who have Parkinson’s disease do not
develop enough dopamine, which “is a chemical that provides coordinated
movement of the muscles” (Kim J.H. et al). According to an article in the The
National Library of Medicine, Parkinson’s disease could be treated by developing
embryonic stem cells into dopamine neurons, and adequate dopamine levels
would allow the patient’s symptoms to subside (Kim J.H. et al). Thus, embryonic
stem cell research is critical for making advances in fighting degenerative
Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 11
diseases like Parkinson’s (Kinsley 1). As the head of the NIH, Harold Varmus,
said, “this research has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine”
(Easterbrook par. 6).
In recent procedures involving the medicinal use of embryonic stem cells,
scientists have shown evidence that although this research has not been
guaranteed in humans; the results from animal tests have shown great potential.
For example, research involving the use of adult mice is attempting to develop
procedures that use one’s own cells to treat degenerative diseases (Dunham
par.1). Even when the treatment cells have low compatibility, the results of
research are still very promising. In July, 2001, scientists released a tape which
shows paralyzed mice “once again able to move their limbs, bear their own
weight, and even move around after injections of human embryonic stem cells in
their spinal cords” (Henderson and Kay 74).
In addition to these results, Dr. John McDonald, director of the spinal cord
injury unit at Washington University School of Medicine, conducted an
experiment with hopes to find a cure for one of his paralyzed patients which
would enable him to walk again. “McDonald gave rats a similar injury [to his
patient], then injected some with stem cells” (Cohen 1). After a period of six
weeks, scientists analyzed the results of the treatment. They discovered the rats’
legs were able to function once again. Christopher Reeve (See Fig. 3),
McDonald’s paralyzed patient, said of the results, "Never before has there been
such a powerful tool, such a resource that can give so much hope. And to have
it just sitting here right in front of us, ready to go while all this debate rages on, is
Fig. 3. Christopher Reeve. From “In Pictures: Christopher Reeve.” BBC News. 11 October 2004. 4 April2007. <http://news.bbc.co.uk>.
Photo of the late Christopher Reeve,
a strong advocate of stem cell
research, and wife. Reeve’s
paralysis could have been improved
through stem cell treatments.
Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 12
really, really frustrating” (1). Many patients
like Reeve did not have the time for
scientists to find an alternative to embryonic
stem cell research, and thus research on
embryonic stem cells should no longer be
held back. The experiments with embryonic
stem cells show possibilities of being very
beneficial for mammals and could in turn
create the same benefits for humans.
Some humans have already
experienced the potential benefits of human
embryonic stem cells through experimental
treatments. Anders Björklund and fellow neuroscientists in Sweden have been
treating their Parkinson’s disease patients with fetal neuron grafts for ten years
(Barinaga 93). According to Björklund, this research is “proof of principle that cell
replacement actually works” (93). These fetal grafts are extremely rare, which
leads to little hope of developing widespread treatments for similar diseases (95).
Applying these techniques using embryonic stem cells, however, could establish
medical breakthroughs for many debilitating conditions (96). In addition to this
hope of further developing the technology there is an exhibition of success in
those who received the grafts. Bjorklund’s patients experienced “up to a 50
percent reduction in their symptoms” (95). Thus, this research demonstrates the
Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 13
benefits which humanity could reap if stem cells were to be extensively applied
as medical treatments.
Though embryonic stem cell research has its critics, in order to improve
the well-being of society, it is necessary to look beyond the ethical standards of a
few, to benefit all. These medical advancements are moving forward despite the
obstacles set by the opposition; this has happened numerous times in the past,
and in time has proven to be beneficial to mankind. Thus, it is difficult to uphold
concerns against moving forward with the technology when such a promising
future lies ahead. If the rewards of this technology are certain to be unlocked in
the future, then should the American people not be supporting the research now?
Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 14
Works Cited
“About SCRF.” Stem Cell Research Foundation. 2006. Stem Cell Research
Foundation. 2 April 2007 <http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.com>.
Barinaga, Marcia. “Fetal Neuron Grafts Pave the Way For Stem Cell Therapies.”
Pynes and Ruse 93-97.
Berger, Elini. “Research Avenue Adds Fuel to Stem Cell Controversy.”
CNN Health July 2001. 14 March 2007 <http://www.cnn.com/>.
Cohen, Elizabeth. “Stem Cells Help Heal Parlayzed Rats.” 12 August 2001.
CNN.com. 26 March 2007. <http://www.cnn.com>.
“Collecting Cord Blood Stem Cells.” 10 December 2006. Cord Blood Registry. 2
April 2007. <www.cordblood.com>.
Donohue, John W. "The Stem Cell Debate" America. 13 Nov 2006. ProQuest.
Michigan State University Libraries. 20 Mar.
2007 <http://www.proquest.com>.
Dunham, Will. “Researchers Spur Growth of Adult Brain Cells.” Reuters. 15 Nov.
2006. 31 Mar 2007. <http://www.reuters.com>.
Easterbrook, Gregg. "Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning: An Overview."
Medical Ethics. Ed. James D. Torr. Current Controversies Series. San
Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.
Thomson Gale. Michigan State University Libraries. 15 March 2007
<http://find.galegroup.com>.
Henderson, Mark and Katty Kay. “Paralyzed Mouse Walks Again as Scientists
Fight Stem Cell Ban.” Pynes and Ruse 73-75.
Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 15
Kim J.H. et al. “Dopamine Neurons Derived from Embryonic Stem Cells Function
in an Animal Model of Parkinson's Disease.” 20 June 2002. The National
Library of Medicine. 3 April 2007. <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>.
Kinsley, Michael. “If You Believe Embryos Are Humans.” 17 June 2001. TIME.
26 March 2007. <http://www.time.com>.
Marin, Carol. “60 Minutes II, Holy Grail.” Pynes and Ruse 77-81.
“NIH Seeks More Stem Cell Research.” 25 July 2001. CNN.com. 26 March 2007.
<www.cnn.com >.
Novak, Michael. “The Stem-Cell Slide.” Human Life Review 27.3 (Summer
2001): 74-78. ProQuest. Michigan State University Libraries. 15 March
2007 <http://proquest.umi.com/>. pdf.
Parry, Marc. "1,000 Catholics Lobby at Capitol: Cardinal Leads Drive Against
Stem- Cell Research and for Tuition Deductions." Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News 14 March 2007. ABI/INFORM Dateline. ProQuest.
Michigan State University Libraries. 20 March
2007 <http://www.proquest.com/>.
Pynes, Christopher A. and Michael Ruse, eds. The Stem Cell Controversy.
2nd ed. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2006.
Ryan, Kenneth J, M.D. “The Politics and Ethics of Human Embryo and Stem Cell
Research.” Pynes and Ruse 291-299.
Shoemaker, Leigh. “The Promises of Stem Cells Kept.” Pynes and Ruse 99-104.
“Stem Cell Basics.” 20 December 2006. National Institutes of Health. 15 March
2007 <http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/defaultpage.pdf>.
Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 16
Walter, Donna. “The Stem Cell Debate.” St. Charles County Business Record 1
Nov 2006. ProQuest. Michigan State University Libraries. 29 March 2007
<http://www.proquest.com/>.
Weiss, Rick. “The Power to Divide Stem Cells.” National Geographic. July 2005.
21 March 2007. <www.nationalgeographic.com>.