Modern medicine has progressed in leaps and bounds. The germ theory of medicine has led to the discovery of antibiotics and contributed to widespread vaccination against an increasing number of infectious diseases. This has contributed to a near tripling of the lifespan of human beings in the last 150 years.
Stem cell research promises to be the next big leap in medicine. Stem cells potential can be manipulated to grow and replace any tissue or organ that has sustained damage or disease. This research promises to treat or cure a number of diseases including heart disease, diabetes, spinal cord injury and certain neuro-degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis. Stem cell research may make the long waits for organ transplants a thing of the past.
Stem cells are relatively undifferentiated cells that have not yet acquired any structure specific to a particular tissue. Unlike fully differentiated cells, they can be manipulated relatively easily - by culturing with appropriate growth factors and other chemicals - to grow into specialized organ or tissue.
Stem cells can be divided into two categories. Embryonic stem cells (ES cells), as the name suggests, must be obtained from a human embryo following an abortion, or unused embryos from a process of in vitro fertilization.
This fact troubles those who believe that an embryo is a human being that possesses rights. The term "adult stem cell" refers to any stem cell other than embryonic cells. The term is a misnomer, since they are present in both adults and children.
Adult stem cells are found in various parts of the body. Unlike ES cells, an embryo is not required for their harvest and thus does not pose a problem for those against abortion.
Anti-abortion commentator Ann Coulter stated in her book "Godless," "Although there has been research on both adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells since the '50s, only adult stem-cell research has produced any cures - and lots of 'em - by contrast, the embryonic stem-cell researchers have produced nothing."
Columnist David Forsmark has echoed these sentiments claiming, "[D]espite recent breakthroughs in adult and umbilical stem cell research that many scientists say make the ethically troubling notion of killing human embryos is unnecessary for research …"
By making such claims, commentators like Coulter and Forsmark shift the debate from a moral issue to a scientific one. The fact is, abortion is now legal in the United States. In lieu of secular convincing arguments made by such commentators against abortion, the issue of ES cell research should be considered on purely scientific grounds.
On the face of it, these statements seem true. Bone marrow transplants have been performed on human subjects for the last 50 years. This procedure essentially replaces patients' immune systems that have been damaged by disease or radiation or chemotherapy treatments for cancer patients.
Neural stem cells have been used successfully to treat patients suffering from stroke and Parkinson's disease, while hepatic stem cells have been used to treat various metabolic disorders. Stem cells isolated from human umbilical cords with no damage to fetus or mother have been used for more than 20 years for blood diseases, metabolic disorders and certain forms of cancer benefiting some 10,000 patients world wide.
There has been some progress in research using embryonic stem cells. For example, an ES cell line injected into the brain has improved motor function in a mouse model of Parkinson's disease. An ES cell line injected into the pancreas has been successful at treating hyperglycemic mice.
Unfortunately, ES cells, in contrast to adult stem cells, have been successful only in animal models.
Nevertheless, there are good scientific reasons to continue ES cell research. Adult stem cells are relatively specialized compared to ES cells. This reduces the number of steps necessary to differentiate into specialized tissue.
This fact helps to explain the greater success of adult stem cell research up to this point. On the other hand, the relatively differentiated state of adult cells is thought to place limits to the types of tissue into which they can specialize and replace. By contrast, ES cells can potentially differentiate into any tissue type.
To argue against ES cells because they have not yet achieved clinical success is tantamount to arguing against research against fusion nuclear power. While fission power currently is used to produce electricity, fusion power promises energy from a nearly limitless source - hydrogen - cheaply and without any radioactive byproducts.
This analogy is limited only in that the fruits of cold fusion research are in the much more distant future than is ES cell research. While the success of ES cells is limited to animal models, many treatments first have seen success in animal models before being used in the clinical setting.
The following quote from an anonymous source sums up the issue, "The gods see what is to come; wise men see what is coming; ordinary men see what is come."
Clearly one can make a strong case supporting the practicality of ES cell research. Further, it is a misplaced effort for anti-abortion commentators to convince people otherwise. Even if one is convinced of the practicality of ES cell research, it would be a moot point for someone who also believes that the unborn fetus is a person endowed with rights.
No one would argue that it would be morally proper to sacrifice some human beings for the sake of medical research. By resorting to arguments from utility against ES cell research, these commentators betray a lack of confidence in the moral case against abortion.
Be the first to comment on this article!