| OCR Text |
Show The Science, Ethics, and Politics of Stem Cell Research Bradley Curtis Frist's background as a transplant surgeon led him to be heavily involved in the stem cell debate. One month before President Bush announced his policy in August of 2001, Frist set forth an agenda that would promote research on stem cells derived from both embryos and adults. After President Bush announced his policy that restricted embryonic stem cell research, Frist backed down and supported Bush's policy (Connelly, 2005a). Frist cited the poor quality of the remaining stem cell lines as his motivation for changing his stance. Whether or not Frist had political motives behind his shift (a definite possibility as Frist has been identified as a possible presidential candidate in 2008), the decision unquestionably had political implications. Both sides of the debate agreed that the announcement would most likely convince some undecided members of Congress to support the legislation, and possibly lead President Bush to rethink his stance (Connelly, 2005a). The Christian Defense Coalition withdrew their support of Frist in the 2008 Republican presidential primaries, and other conservative groups voiced their disapproval, labeling Frist as a "sell-out" (Connelly, 2005a). Another Advance On Sunday, August 21, 2005, the journal Science made an important announcement on the journal's website. Researchers at Harvard Stem Cell Institute were able to convert skin cells into embryonic stem cells, without destroying existing embryos (Weiss, 2005). Because this method does not require the creation or destruction of the embryos, it is eligible for federal funding under the current policy, and it does not carry the same ethical problems that extracting cells from embryos does. This development provided additional support for those who agree with the current policy. "All this is confirmation we will see breakthroughs without compromising ethical standards," said Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), a physician who has led opposition to embryonic stem cell research. "We're not going to have to go that way if we can just be patient and fund the basic science" (Connelly, 2005). The new method is still unproven, and some barriers must be overcome. The way in which these cells are formed creates one such barrier. These cells require the fusion of a stem cell with a skin cell, thus they retain the DNA of the skin cell donor and the DNA from the embryonic stem cell (Weiss, 2005). Before this technique becomes viable, researchers will have to develop a way to remove the extra DNA. Lead stem cell researchers have been cautious to over estimate these findings: "I think that we need to keep our eye on the ball here," said John Gearhart a stem cell researcher at Johns Hopkins Medical Institute. He continued, "If this stuff proves to work, that's wonderful. But we're just not there yet, and it's going to take a long time to demonstrate that. Meanwhile, other techniques already work well. So let's get on with it" (Weiss, 2005). The lead author of the report, Kevin Eggan cautioned: "This technology is not ready for prime time. This is not a replacement for the techniques that we already have" (Weiss, 2005). Discussion and Conclusion One important fact that needs constant emphasis in this debate is the process of in vitro fertilization. A woman has multiple embryos created, and then from those embryos, a few are implanted, usually with the hope that one will survive. The remaining embryos are discarded or frozen. For the time being this is the best way to ensure success in implantation. If only one embryo was created, it would greatly decrease the chances of implantation. IVF is an expensive procedure, so it is beneficial to the parent(s) to have additional embryos, as they increase the odds of successful implantation. This treatment goes largely unquestioned and is generally accepted. It provides couples an opportunity that they could not have otherwise. It seems that one who is opposed to embryonic stem cell research on the grounds that it is morally impermissible to treat embryos in such a manner should also object to in vitro fertilization. President Bush included "snowflake" babies in his May 24, 2005, press conference emphasizing that each embryo has the potential to become a unique person. This is a striking image, but these "snowflakes" are a definite minority, especially in comparison to the total number of embryos that have been placed in storage in the United States. As of April 11, 2002, there have been 396,526 embryos placed in storage (Rand Law and Health, 2002). It is highly unlikely that all of these embryos will become "snowflake" babies. This prospect is even more unlikely because these frozen embryos cannot stay viable indefinitely. The Human Embryology Authority (2003) in the United Kingdom determined that the maximum storage time of embryos to be five years. Thus the creation and destruction of embryos is an unavoidable byproduct of IVF. If it is unacceptable to destroy these embryos for stem cell research, it should be unacceptable to do so for IVF. Likewise, if this sacrifice is acceptable in the case of IVF, it should be acceptable for embryonic stem cell research as well. While President Bush opposes the destruction of embryos for stem cell research, he has not commented on IVF. But IVF has been an important part of thousands of people's lives, and embryonic stem cell research could likewise prove to be a life changing development. Most people refer to "slippery-slopes" when engaging in this debate. The slippery slope works in both directions. Many fear that providing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research will be one more step toward the commodification of human life, and that we will become a "Brave New World," where humans are grown for spare body parts. While it is true that we must proceed with caution, the best way to guarantee that this research does not go down this slippery slope is to provide federal funds and impose regulations to control what can be done. If not, the private sector will continue to do the 22 |
