THE FUTURE OF STEM CELL RESEARCH IN THE UNITED STATES
MICHAEL WALKER
INTRODUCTION
The
relationship between science and religion throughout history has been one of
theoretical conflict and deeply held passion. As the great scientists of the
Renaissance pushed the boundaries of the orthodox beliefs, the church fought to
uphold them. Darwin withheld his work on the evolution of man because he knew
of this delicate relationship and the potentially dangerous consequences that
could result from challenging religious beliefs. Today we have the opportunity that only few in history have had:
to see first hand an explosion of thought and innovation. This technological
revolution has already benefited many by making business and industrial work
more efficient. This revolution has also started to change the world of
medicine and the environment. The potential to save millions of lives is real,
as is the danger to our own civilization. Science and religion once again are
conflicting, yet the benefits of the current technological revolution are too
great to deny and definitely worthy of compromise. One of the current issues
being discussed by the scientific and religious community is the use of stem
cells from a human fetus to further medical research and possibly use to treat
serious health problems. The future of stem cell research in the United States
depends on how the public reacts over the next few years. If Americans are
aware of the benefits of stem cell research by positive publicity and strict
guidelines are adopted for all scientific institutions to follow, than stem
cell research will be possible and the benefits quickly realized.
Human Pluripotent Stem Cells, or
simply called stem cells, are “the basic cells in newly formed embryos that
generate all other tissues in the body” (Murphy, 1). This amazing ability to
generate human tissues is the main attraction for scientist of medical
research. In November 1998 these cells were discovered by James Thompson and
John Gearhart and since many scientists have started to do research with them.
Kevin Murphy states “stem cell research, which is legal if privately financed,
has shown promise in curing diabetes, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases,
spinal cord injuries, heart ailments and other illnesses” (1). The potential
for curing all of these diseases has many scientist, and venture capitalists,
interested in researching the cells. Scientists currently researching the cells
believe that if they are injected into certain parts of the body they will
rebuild any damaged or dead cells. For example if a stroke victim injected stem
cells into his/her brain where the damage from the restricted blood flow was,
then those cells would rejuvenate and repair any damage. The potential to cure
many life threatening diseases makes stem cell research necessary and
promising.
All children and adults have stem
cells, but scientists have not had as much success with these cells as they
have had with those from embryos. Jeremy Olson states “the problem for some is
that embryos are destroyed in the process of obtaining these cells, offending
people who believe that embryos are human lives with rights” (1). Many
religious groups are against the use of embryonic stem cells to further medical
research because they believe that life starts when the embryo is formed and
anything that stops the natural process of the embryo is murder. The Pope has
come out and said that he believes that the soul enters the body at the exact
moment of conception. These religious groups have had success in the United
States fighting abortion and research using embryos. A huge publicity campaign
by these groups has been extremely effectual on the issue of partial birth or
late term abortions. In a recent Gallup poll taken on April 2 66% of all
Americans would make the procedure known as partial birth abortion illegal
(Gallup, 9). This overwhelming majority is almost certainly due to the intense
publicity effort by the religious community. These groups have had success
fighting research as well, for “in 1995, Congress passed a ban on federal
funding of research using human embryos” (Berg and Goldstein, 1). Although stem
cell research could be potentially revolutionary, many religious groups oppose
it because the embryo is destroyed in the process. These groups have been successful
in similar areas of abortion and embryo research to center the debate and
influence the American people.
Although Congress banned federal
funding of embryonic research in 1995, it said nothing of stem cells. However,
in 1999 the Department of Health and Human Services ruled that federally funded
researchers could perform stem cell experiments as long as the embryos came
from privately funded resources. This decision led to the National Institutes
of Health releasing guidelines on stem cell research. These guidelines were
praised by more than 25 patient and health advocacy groups including the
American Medical Association and the American Association for Cancer Research
(American Society for Cell Biology Press Release, August 23, 2000). Berg and
Goldstein state that “the NIH guidelines are appropriately restrictive and
responsive to the sensibilities of those who are concerned that work proceed
only under careful ethical oversight” (2). The guidelines require that
federally funded labs use embryos only with the consent of the donor, and the
embryos can only come from excess frozen reserves that would have been used for
in-vitro fertilization. These excess embryos would probably be discarded due to
an abundant supply throughout the country. Any research firm receiving federal
funds would have to meet these specific requirements, but there is proof that
the entire scientific community agrees with the guidelines and will adopt them.
The guidelines give the public the opportunity to influence the ethical
practices of research firms and they give scientists reasonable barriers and
lucrative federal funds.
The decision to use federal funding
for stem cell research and the adoption of the NIH guidelines are two positive
developments for the future of stem cell research. The governments use of
federal funds will increase research and development of cures. This funding
also gives the government some leverage with research firms by determining that
ethical guidelines be met in order to receive funds. The federal government
should increase the amount of money it provides for stem cell research and
continue to carefully watch all firms that experiment with embryonic cells. The
government can continue to explore research guidelines and change them if
necessary. Federal funding also has positive economic impacts as well. In
Maryland, a state-sponsored venture capital fund has invested $11.2 million in
32 biotech companies. The Enterprise Investment Fund has helped to create 1,200
jobs and profited $46.8 million from sales of stock (Bell, 1). Some of these
companies include stem cell research firms. The use of federal funding for stem
cell research will increase development, provide the government with leverage
over ethical issues, and fuel the economy by creating jobs.
The use of federal funds for stem
cell research and guidelines will help protect the future of stem cell
research. However, leadership and public awareness are necessary to insure that
stem cell experiments continue and that the full potential of stem cells is
realized. In the United States, there is some evidence that political leaders
understand the value of stem cell research. Recently the United State’s Senate proposed
the “Stem Cell Research Act of 2000” this bill has bipartisan support and would
allow federally funded scientists to derive stem cells themselves. The Senate
has shown leadership on this issue, but they are constantly bombarded by
well-organized and determined opposition to stem cell research. After the NIH
set forth the guidelines for stem cell research right to life groups flooded
members of Congress with letters. For this reason, it is important that a
publicity campaign be enacted to inform the public of stem cell research.
Federal funding and guidelines may provide fertile ground for stem cell
research, but they do not protect it from the well-organized groups that are
against it. If these groups are able to influence Congress and pursue them with
election money, than stem cell research may be outlawed. The best way to combat
this potential danger is to inform the public of stem cell research and the NIH
guidelines. Film stars that diagnosed with life threatening diseases have
testified before the Senate. Christopher Reeve, who suffered a spinal cord
injury, and Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson’s disease, told their stories and
how stem cell research could change their lives and those of countless others.
This publicity will help inform the public of stem cell research and allow them
to decide for themselves about the ethical dilemmas. However, these groups
should consider bigger publicity campaigns to advertise the potential benefits
of stem cell research and the ethical standards that have been adopted.
Congressional leadership and a publicity campaign to inform people of the
benefits and adopted standards of stem cell research are necessary to insure
the future of stem cell research.
Although many religious groups
oppose stem cell research, and would ban it if given the chance, it is
important for the future of stem cell research to continue to compromise with
these groups. The NIH guidelines were opposed by many of these groups, yet for
many moderate Christians it justified their acceptance of stem cell research.
The scientific community should continue to develop ethical standards and
research ways to acquire stem cells without destroying an embryo in the
process. Also scientists should continue to research the capabilities of adult
stem cells for “recent studies have suggested. . . that the adult stem cells
may have more usefulness than once thought” (Olson, 2). If the scientific
community can find a way to acquire stem cells without destroying the embryo or
a way to use adult stem cells, it will almost certainly quiet any critics to
their research. Until these techniques develop it is important that the
scientific community continue to administer ethical guidelines and inform the
public of their research. It is important to compromise with the religious
community and attempt to find common ground, but if common ground is not
possible the scientific community must inform the public and continue to use
and develop ethical boundaries.
As technology and biology continue
to become one science, the divide between the scientific and religious
community will become greater. This war of ideology is nothing new, but the new
consequences of failure are tremendous. Potentially millions of people will benefit
from stem cell research and possibly millions of lives saved. This is why the
scientific community must continue to research stem cells with caution and
ethics. The NIH guidelines and the increase in federal funding will help to
protect the future of stem cell research, but to insure the future for research
the scientific community needs Congressional leadership and a publicity
campaign to inform the public. They should also continue to develop ways to
increase ethical standards and possibly compromise with the religious community
by finding ways to acquire stem cells without destroying the embryo and
exploring the potential of adult stem cells. If the public is informed of the
possible cures that could come from stem cell research and of the strict guidelines
that have been adopted than they will push Congress to fund more of these
projects, and if the religious community knows that scientists are working to
find a way to accomplish this research without harming embryos and/or by using
adult stem cells they will be more comfortable with it and embrace stem cell
research. Stem cell research in the United States has an exciting and possibly
phenomenal future, and if the appropriate steps are taken this research will
not be endangered by the religious community but accepted by them and the
public.
Bell, Julie.
Another bid for biotech benefits. The Baltimore Sun. September 28, 2000.
http://lexis-nexis.com/universe/doc
Berg, Paul and
Goldstein, Lawrence. Why federal support of stem cell research is
necessary.
The San Diego Union. September 21, 2000. http://lexis-nexis.com/universe/doc
Gallup Poll,
Abortion Issues 2000. http://www.gallup.com
Murphy, Kevin.
Research Barrier Debated. The Kansas City Star. September 15, 2000.
http://lexis-nexis.com/universe/doc
Olson,
Jeremy. NU Panel Debates Stem Cell
Research. The Omaha World Herald.
September
21, 2000. http://lexis-nexis.com/universe/doc