Stem Cells

No matter where you stand on stem cells and their use in research, this seems to be a very black and white argument with the pro-life movement right in the middle of it. But is it really black and white? While we Americans argue this ethical issue, we have to remember that this is not just an American quandary, it is an International one. Do we really want countries that may be less ethical than us to set the stage on this research by themselves? What about the promises of this research? Can we wait? Read the article below and at least contemplate the opinions of Robert Freer.

Robert E. Freer, Jr., President of The Free Enterprise Foundation

This is another in our quarterly series of articles on the scientific wonders of our age. I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Craig Knowlton, one of our Baker Free Enterprise Fellows in the research for this article.

Last week, researchers at Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) announced the development of a method to extract embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. In doing so, they tried to address the concerns of opponents of stem cell research, who oppose the consequential destruction of embryos. Scientists hypothesize that stem cells may, at some point in the future, emerge as the basis for treating diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, and heart disease. Despite the possibilities for tremendous medical advancements and ACT’s recent breakthrough, ethical objections still remain. Those who object have convinced the federal government to deny federal funding for any research that utilizes stem cells except for certain lines that existed prior to the imposition of the ban. Ethical research standards published by the department of Health and Human Services also speak to this restriction, and the real inhibition is found in the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration that require their notification of any new investigational drug research utilizing stem cells.

Stem cells differ from other kinds of cells in the body. One intriguing property is that they are unspecialized. This means that a stem cell does not have any tissue-specific structures that allow it to perform specialized functions: it cannot pump blood like a heart muscle cell, and it cannot carry molecules through the bloodstream like a red blood cell. However, unspecialized stem cells can morph into specialized cells like heart muscle cells, blood cells, or nerve cells. Scientists hope through their research to reliably direct this process, called differentiation, to create healthy specific cell types that could be used as effective transplant treatments that may not require continuing immunosuppressive treatment for a wide range of currently incurable conditions.

Traditionally, human embryonic stem cells are extracted from an embryo that has developed for four or five days into a hollow microscopic ball of 150 cells called a blastocyst. The extraction pulls the embryo apart and destroys it. Although the frozen embryos used have typically been leftovers from in-vitro fertilization procedures that would otherwise be discarded, this destruction of a possible life incites most criticism of stem cell research. Yet, researchers believe that stem cell lines can now be grown using blastomeres—less developed balls of eight to ten cells—which could be left intact. The head of Dartmouth College Ethics Institute, Dr. Ronald Green, believes that the new extraction method solves moral concerns and “appears to be a way out of the current political impasse in this country and elsewhere.”

The new method depends on in-vitro fertilization, the generation of embryos outside the womb from a couple’s egg and sperm. IVF clinics commonly extract a single cell from an early stage embryo in order to scan for genetic flaws, and while the procedure risks damaging the embryo, removing a cell does not appear to interfere with later fetal and childhood development. This extraction and testing already occurs, and ACT believes that these cells can be used to create medically viable stem cell lines.

Still, even the relative harmlessness of this new development may not dissuade critics. Some people still worry that a single cell extracted from an embryo harnesses the capability of becoming a human being despite there being no evidence to suggest that a single cell from blastomeres could develop into an individual. Another concern is the long-term development of a person from an embryo missing one eighth of its cells, and perhaps not enough individuals have grown using this IVF practice to make a comprehensive study.

Most opponents of stem cell research base their arguments from a pro-life standpoint. This outlook identifies human life in a clump of cells birthed in a test tube and perhaps in the presence of a single living stem cell. This stance is absolute and will not be swayed, yet stem cell research remains a necessary track which medicine must follow. The millions of people who could benefit from research and the relatively few stem cells presently available make this a certainty not a speculation. What I worry about is the rush to embrace this research elsewhere on the globe, where the resources will not be expended under our carefully nuanced regulations to balance the ethical concerns. If our nation does not lead stem cell medical innovation in a progressive yet principled manner, then other countries may control the emerging knowledge and reap the benefits without the necessary ethical oversights.

Our religious beliefs guide our actions, yet in life we are faced with dilemmas that force us to choose among unattractive choices where we recognize our human limitations. In the case of a natural disaster, for instance, medical personnel are often forced to “triage” their patients and the service they render into groups that their judgment tells them will live to receive delayed treatment, those who will most likely die whether treated or not, and those who will live only if they receive immediate treatment. These same medical personnel are daily selecting areas of most promising research and are facing the ethical issues of animal testing where it is often true that animals are sacrificed in the process.

We proceed because, distressful as it is, the experience gained can be shown to directly save countless lives, and as to the research, human lives aren’t sacrificed. In the case of stem cells, the unrealized promise of its exploitation holds out an even greater promise of greatly extending useful lives and saving countless others. These are human beings in which countless years of love and attention in many instances have been invested, and the ripple effect of their salvation holds almost incalculable benefits to society. Under that scenario, I choose the living. This is particularly so when I choose to permit the use of blastocysts, that others have already decided will never be allowed to develop into human beings and will ultimately be sacrificed

On the one hand, patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries, heart and organ disease, muscular dystrophy, and other neurological disorders will gain from the possibilities of stem cell research. On the other, some clumps of cells stay on the freezer shelf or disposed of without ceremony of any kind. To not support the use of stem cells research dooms thousands of individuals from the potential benefit of their only hope of salvation from their insidious diseases. Now that is immoral.

Copyright © 2007 by Robert E. Freer, Jr. All rights reserved

About the author: Robert E. Freer, Jr. is President of the The Free Enterprise Foundation. He is a Visiting Professor, at The Citadel and elected in 2005 to be their first John S. Grinalds Leader in Residence. A regular contributor to the Mercury, He can be reached by E-mail at The Citadel . Copies of his earlier columns can be found The Free Enterprise Foundation.

If you’d like to contribute an article to this collection please e-mail it for review .

Note: A new article appears about every 2 weeks. Sign up below for our newsletter to get each new article mailed to you the day it is published.