Stem cell research should go forward

FEW TOPICS FUEL debate over ethics more than embryonic stem cell research. To some, this frontier science goes well beyond the earthly limitations of acceptable medical practice and ventures into a realm once reserved only for God himself. It presents two fundamental questions. Do we have the right to create life and do we have the right to end life?

But before I answer these questions, I’d like to make sure we are on the same page in our understanding of the fundamental principles of the research.

Scientists use embryonic stem cells because these cells have a unique quality. I’ll try to explain this without getting to bogged-down with all the technical mumbo-jumbo.

We all know, when an egg is first fertilized it begins to split. One becomes two, two become four, etc. These cells are identical; that is, they have yet to form any characteristic that would distinguish one from another.

They are known as pluripotent cells and can be cultured and replicated indefinitely, forming a stem cell line. Each of these cells contains about 40 stem cells that can be extracted.

What is unique about these cells and why they are so valuable to scientists is they have not “matured” to a state of specialization. They can, through a process called pluripotency, form any cell in the body such as a liver, a heart or even a brain.

It is believed by putting these healthy pluripotent cells in damaged areas of the human body they will mature into the specialized cells of whatever organ or muscle they are adjoined and replace the damaged cells with healthy new ones.

Just like that, damaged hearts become vigorous pumping machines or severed spinal cords fuse together, allowing paraplegics to walk again.

With that out of the way, let’s talk ethics.

Opponents to embryonic stem cell research, mostly pro-lifers, argue that life begins at conception and this state of being is just as viable a condition of life as any.

Therefore any harm performed to these embryos is a vile act of murder. It doesn’t matter if that embryo is simply a group of clustered cells. It doesn’t matter that there’s no formation of organs, skeleton or nervous system. They exist. Therefore, they are. I understand this argument and give credence to its assumptions.

So now the question becomes, where are scientists getting the embryos they use for research? The answer is the embryos are left over fertilized eggs from fertility clinics.

After a couple becomes pregnant or decides they no longer need the services of a fertility clinic there are unused fertilized eggs left at these clinics. They are frozen in time. They’re in a state, if you believe that life begins at conception, of perpetual suspended animation, a true 21st century Buck Rogers condition.

They could theoretically last in this state forever. But this is not the case. Each year thousands of these embryos are slated for destruction, and it is these embryos that scientist are using to conduct their research.

Given this, why aren’t pro-lifers and legislators fighting to save the thousands of lives being destroyed at fertility clinics each year? They are, after all, committing the same willful act of “murder” as research scientist.

With this in mind, I find it hard to justify any argument against stem cell research. Furthermore, the potential good for the millions of lives that can be improved, saved and prolonged has far more practical considerations than ethical opponents are willing to admit.

Let’s say, for example, that someone who is opposed to embryonic stem cell research has a baby.

Unfortunately, she is stricken with a fatal form of cancer. The prognosis is a long painful fight, with no chance of survival. But wait, there may be hope. Doctors inform the parents that a new scientific discovery has been made using stem cell research, and their child is a perfect candidate for the treatment. If treated, their child has a 90 percent chance of a full recovery and a long healthy life. I dare say, no parent would hold to an ethical principle while they watch their child suffer and die.

On another note: I have a continuing challenge for every reader. E-mail your comments pro and con concerning the issue to [email protected]. And each subsequent week I will choose up to two statements that best describe the views of the readers and present these comments in the next weeks issue. Secondly, send comments and concerns about issues you feel need to be discussed.

Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>