The Collision Between Science, Politics,
& Religion in the Stem Cell
Controversy
One
basic principle of the Christian religion is to protect the lives of the
unborn. As the most adamant protesters
against abortion, the Christians believe that if children are to be allowed to
come to Christ, they must first be allowed to come into the world. They abide by the Bible which characterizes
those who kill children as heathens. 2
Chronicles 28:3 states: “...But he was an evil king;...He even went out to the
Valley of Hinnom, and it was not just to burn incense to the idols, for he even
sacrificed his own children in the fire, just like the heathen nations that
were thrown out of the land by the Lord to make room for Israel.” In science, on the other hand, the basic
ideal is that: knowledge is power.” To
scientists, there is no fear of mysticism that stands in the way of scientific
advancement. For example, with an
objective and rational view of the world, Galileo Galilei rejected the claim
that biblical authority could decide matters of astronomy. In 1615, he claimed: “But I do not feel
obliged to believe that God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and
intellect has intended to forgo their use and by some other means to give us
knowledge which we can attain by them...This must be especially true in those
sciences of which but the faintest trace...is to be found in the Bible.” There is an age old rift between science and
religion. Science and religion clash
over fundamental issues such as abortion.
For most people, abortion is a black or white issue--pro-choice or
pro-life. The progress of the current
biotechnological revolution has shed new light on the abortion
controversy. Now the controversy is not
over whether or not abortion should be legal, but rather, whether or not human
embryonic tissue may be used for scientific research. Recent findings on the potential of embryonic stem cells in
healing various life-threatening diseases and injuries have re-ignited the
ethical debate of protecting the lives of the unborn. In this recurring controversy, politics has served as the bridge
between science and religion. In an
effort to quell the debate, recent legislation has sought not to emphasize the rift
between the opposing parties, but rather to create an alliance or, at the very
least, a compromise between the two.
The following paper will examine the collision between science,
politics, and the ethical debate surrounding the stem cell controversy. Specifically, the paper will illustrate what
stem cells are, the recent developments in stem cell research, and the
political solutions which have already been implemented. Finally, with the proposal of possible
future solutions and scenarios, the paper will explore speculations upon which
direction stem cells will take in the future.
What are stem
cells?
Stem
cells are cells that have the ability to divide for indefinite periods in
culture and give rise to specialized cells.
In human development, when a sperm fertilizes an egg, the fertilized egg
is totipotent, meaning that its potential is total. The cell divides into identical totipotent cells in the first
hours after fertilization. If any of
these cells is placed into a woman’s uterus, it has the potential to develop
into a fetus.
Four
days after fertilization and after several cycles of cell division, totipotent
cells form a hollow sphere of cells called a blastocyst. The blastocyst consists of an outer layer of
cells and an inner cell mass found inside the hollow sphere. While the outer layer of cells will become
the placenta and other supporting tissues, the inner cell mass will go on to
form virtually all of the tissues of the human body. Although the inner cell mass cells can form virtually every type
of cell found in the human body, they cannot form an organism because they are
unable to give rise to the placenta and supporting tissues necessary for
development in the human uterus. For
this reason, the inner cell mass cells are said to be pluripotent--they can
give rise to many types of cells but not all types of cells necessary for fetal
development. Pluripotent stem cells,
therefore, are not totipotent and they are not embryos. The pluripotent stem cells undergo further
specialization that will eventually give rise to cells that have a particular
function (for example, skin stem cells, etc.).
--Sources of Stem Cells
There are three primary sources of
stem cells--embryonic stem cells, embryonic germ cells, and adult stem
cells. Embryonic stem cells are derived
from a very early embryo. Embryonic
germ cells, on the other hand, are collected from fetal tissue at a somewhat
later stage. Both embryonic stem cells
and embryonic germ cells have particular promise for a wide range of therapeutic
applications because they are capable of giving rise to virtually any cell
type. Embryonic stem cells may be
obtained from fertilized eggs left over in fertility clinics. For this reason, the use of embryonic stem
cells for research is less ethically controversial than embryonic germ
cells. Embryonic germ cells may be
obtained from an aborted fetus. Because
of the moral concerns surrounding abortion, research on embryonic germ cells is
highly contested. Besides planned
abortion, embryonic germ cells may also be obtained from a spontaneous
abortion. Obtaining embryonic germ
cells from a spontaneously aborted fetus, however, poses clinical difficulty
because the cells can only be obtained during a narrow developmental phase
within the first eight weeks after conception.
The least controversial source of stem cells is that which is derived
from the adult. Adult stem cells, obtained
from mature tissues, differentiate into a narrower range of cell types. Although there has been some promising new
evidence of the potential of adult stem cells, there still remain drawbacks to
the adult stem cells which make embryonic stem cell research still
desirable. For example, stem cells for
all cells and tissue types have not yet been found in the adult human. Moreover, stem cells in adults are often
present in only minute quantities and are difficult to isolate and purify. Finally, adult stem cells may contain more
DNA abnormalities caused by exposure to daily living, including sunlight,
toxins, and errors made during DNA replication than would be found in fetal
embryonic pluripotent stem cells.
--Latest
Developments in Stem Cell Research
Since
the NIH Guidelines were made effective in August 2000, American researchers
have been financially and publicly able to perform experiments with stem
cells. American scientists can now join
the international scientific community in this endeavor. The following are a description of only a few of the latest developments in the
global stem cell research field.
September
21, 2000--Stem Cell Transplants Treat Spine Damage in Rats, Atlanta GA. In this experiment, rats with spinal cord
injuries were divided into three groups.
The “control” group received an inactive injection and the other two
groups received two different injections of stem cells into the area of the
spine where the damage had been done.
The investigators found that animals in the control group all developed
paralysis within 167 days after irradiation, but 32% and 36% of the rats in the
groups receiving the stem cell transplant had no paralysis.
September
20, 2000--Italian Research Suggests Adult Stem Cells More Flexible than Once
Believed, Milan, Italy. In this
experiment, scientists took some undeveloped brain stem cells, naturally
occurring in tiny quantities in adult mice, and managed to “re-program” them to
start behaving like muscle cells. The
Italian team produced clones of neuronal stem cells. They were then placed in a culture of muscle cells, and some
mouse neuronal stem cells were also injected into developing mouse
muscles. In both culture and in the
mouse, there was clear evidence that the brain cells were able to divide and
develop into muscle cells.
September,
2000--Chinese Researchers Use Stem Cells to Regenerate Damaged Skin Tissues,
Beijing, China. The Chinese are already
using stem cells in everyday situations.
Currently, regenerated skin (developed from stem cells) is being used to
treat extensive and deep burns.
Current Political
Solutions
Thus
far in the stem cell controversy, politics has served as a bridge between
scientists and average citizens.
Scientific language is not everyday jargon. Since scientists generally feel that it is not their job to
translate their findings into discernible English, politicians are the vehicle
through which the translation is made.
Instead of leaving citizens up to assume and criticize what the
scientists are doing and to keep the scientists aware of the ethical issues
they are raising, some current political solutions have attempted to accommodate
both sides. The NIH Guidelines,
congressional hearings, and the media have all served as political lines of
communication.
--NIH Guidelines
Because federal law
prohibits tax dollars from being used for embryo research, the United States
National Institutes of Health (NIH) has taken the initiative in funding stem
cell research. Although NIH has agreed
to fund research on stem cells, it will not fund the collection of the stem
cells themselves. The issue of funding
of research and many other legalities surrounding the stem cell controversy
were concretely outlined in the NIH Guidelines which went into effect August
2000. The NIH Guidelines were drafted
to serve as a line of communication between citizens concerned with ethical
issues and scientists concerned with progressing further into the potential
application of human pluripotent stem cells.
The Guidelines established structural boundaries to this very abstract
and controversial topic. The Guidelines
established procedures to help ensure that NIH-funded research in this area is
conducted in an ethical and legal manner.
The
Guidelines distinguish the use of human pluripotent stem cells that is eligible
for NIH funding from that which is ineligible.
Documentation must be properly filled out by the awardee receiving the
funds and submitted to NIH. NIH funds
may be used to derive stem cells from fetal tissue. NIH funds may not be used to derive stem cells from human embryos. NIH research funded under these Guidelines
will involve human stem cells derived
1) from human fetal tissue; or 2) from human embryos that are the result
of in vitro fertilization that are in
excess of clinical need. The law and
the Guidelines also guard against encouraging abortion by requiring that the
decision to have an abortion be made apart from and prior to the decision to
donate tissue. The restriction was
designed so that the person treating the individuals seeking fertility
treatment, who is involved in decisions such as how many embryos to produce, is
not the person seeking to derive the stem cells. This separation, established in the Guidelines, is an attempt to
ensure that embryos will not be created in numbers greater than necessary for
fertility treatment.
--Current
Legislation
In
the midst of the busy presidential campaign, current congressional legislation
has served to inform the public that legislation involving the federal funding
for stem cell research is currently work in progress. The chairman of the Senate labor-HHS appropriations subcommittee,
and the panel’s ranking minority member recently announced that they have been
assured by Senate leadership that their jointly sponsored bill, The Stem Cell
Research Act of 2000 (s.2015) will be brought to a vote before Congress
adjourns for the year next month.
--Media
The
media has been the most effective tool thus far for slowly and understandably
introducing the public to the stem cell issue.
The stem cell issue has received the most attention in the media when
associated with a famous television star.
These media clips catch the eye of average television watchers and in
the process, inform them a little bit about stem cells. For example, when surfing through channels,
a viewer may see Mary Tyler Moore (juvenile diabetes victim), or Christopher Reeve (has injured
spinal cord) on CSPAN advocating for
public funding for stem cell research.
Now the viewer may or may not know what stem cells are, but at least
he/she recognizes the television stars.
They see these famous Hollywood icons in front of a room filled with
congressional bureaucrats on Capitol
Hill. This is enough to convince the
average viewer that the issue at hand is a serious one. Also, interviews of famous people on such
popular prime time news shows as 20/20 have been valuable sources of
communication about stem cells.
Interviews with Parkinson’s victim, Michael J. Fox, for example, allow
him a platform to voice his commitment and financial contributions to stem cell
research. A famous Hollywood sweetheart
such as Michael J. Fox may be more informative on the stem cell issue than,
say, an instructional video. In
addition to airing the advocation of stem cell advancements, the media has also
presented the public with the counter-argument as well. In general, the United States public knows
that when conservative Christian right wing activists appear on shows like
Larry King Live, a hot topic is usually on the agenda. Well-known figureheads such as Pat Buchanan
and Jerry Falwell make media appearances to condemn issues such as the research
of embryonic stem cells. They do so not
only to inform the public, but also to build a mass coalition for their side.
Possible Future
Solutions
An
entire revamping of the educational system is a possible future solution. United States education is based on the
ideal of a well-rounded curriculum. By
reforming education into a mathematical, scientific, and computational based
system, children may grow up with a more rational and objective view of the
world. With this view, subjects such as
the biotechnological revolution will fit into the curriculum. In such a system, a biology lab in which
students perform experiments with stem cells may be a possibility. Science and social science will be
interrelated and detached from ethics.
Another
possible solution is the sustained dialogue among scientists, policy makers,
ethicists, theologians, and the public.
Congressional hearings, public meetings by governmental agencies, and
media coverage have already begun to push stem cell research into a spotlight. There should be continued support for this
open manner that has allowed individuals to observe or participate in these
processes. Perhaps there could even be
a global institution that monitors stem cell research around the world. This institution would be responsible for
gathering information from each faction--scientists, policymakers, theologians,
public, etc--involved in the stem cell controversy. In turn, the institution would post findings in international
newspapers, on international television shows, and on the world wide web.
Whatever
solutions are to be made, they must be introduced to the public in a gradual
manner. This is to avoid spontaneous
revolt or violence, such as bombings to abortion clinics, and to minimize
opposition. The issue should be
introduced slowly such that the term “stem cell” becomes a household word. The public should be fully educated before
any drastic experimental or political measures are taken. Furthermore, as much as possible, an effort
should be made to separate embryonic stem cell research-and researchers- from
the manipulation or destruction of embryos.
In addition, public funds should not be directly used to support the destruction
of embryos to produce embryonic stem cell lines. As a result, the wary public may gradually separate stem cell
research from abortion. In addition, an
effort should also be made to stress the fact that with the acceptance and
continuance of in vitro fertilization, many fertilized eggs go to waste as a
result of excess in the fertility clinics; therefore, it should be argued that
embryonic stem cell research is a way of producing some benefit from what would
otherwise be regarded as a situation of loss.
With this argument, the link between embryonic stem cell research and
wrongful acts is remote enough to permit public funding of this research.
Possible Future Scenarios
One
possible future scenario is the complete depletion of stem cell researchers in
the United States and Europe. These
scientists will flee to countries such as China and India where controls on
scientific experiments are not as harsh.
Such countries will invite the “refugees” because scientific advancement
and competition in these areas are considered vital to become a prominent world
power. In such a scenario, the United
States may become inferior to such countries.
In addition, United States and European
citizens will travel to these countries to receive treatments. Because the treatments will be in high
demand, the cost of procedures will be high and, hence, the economies of such
countries will grow.
Another
possible scenario is the creation of a “black market” for human embryos. Because federal tax dollars are prohibited
from being used for embryo research and because NIH will fund the research but
not the collection of stem cells, this leaves private companies to act as
suppliers of stem cells. The NIH
Guidelines state that there can be no incentive for donation of embryos for
research purposes. This is to help
ensure that all donations are voluntary and that individuals will not be
coerced into donating their embryos.
However, with the high demand for embryos expected around the world, a
form of “black market” is inevitable.
Embryo donation will follow the same path of what has become the
accepted practice of selling human eggs to he highest bidder, with ads for egg
donors offering upwards of $50,000.
A
final scenario would be the complete halt of stem cell research in the United
States. If, for example, the
Republicans take the White House in the upcoming election and they take the
House and Senate as well, they could perhaps give into pressures from the
conservative coalition and halt any type of stem cell research. This would be a reversion back to conservative
times and the United States would definitely get left behind in the scientific
realm. Although this is an extreme
scenario, the abortion issue is a hot topic in campaign 2000 and may have
implications for the future. On the one
hand, with the recent approval of the abortion pill, RU486, the controversy
over the legality of abortion may soon be obsolete. On the other hand, Governor George W. Bush is a staunch pro-life
advocate. In his acceptance speech at
the Republican National Convention, he said:
“we will protect the lives of the elderly, the poor,...and the lives of
the unborn.”
As
the United States undergoes a transition to a new administration, the direction
that stem cell research will take in the future is left to speculation. In the midst of such a situation, perhaps
the most attractive option for scientists would be to flee to their own island
or even planet. Scientists from around
the world could ban together and create a “planet stem cell” in outer space. Here they would have no ethical or political
barriers. They could immerse themselves
into their experiments, and take any sort of risk. They could create treatments for any sort of disease or injury
and even treatments that would allow them to live forever.