Alzheimer’s. Diabetes. Cancer.
Gone. Non-existent. All of them.
“In theory, stem cells literally have the ability to cure diseases without side effects,” said Peter Brink, a stem-cell researcher at Stony Brook University on Long Island, N.Y.
Brink and other researchers are at the center of the ongoing debate of whether and how they should continue their work. Stem cells have potential to treat, and possibly cure, some of the world’s deadliest diseases, say researchers. But the use of the cells comes with an ethical dilemma: Human embryos are the source for some of the stem cells.
Those opposed to embryonic-based research say that the destruction of embryos to obtain the stem cells is murder. Stem cells from other sources, they say, should replace the cells used from embryos. The opposition wants the use of embryonic stem cells and government funding of research banned.
The embryos, said Lewis Ragonese of the Syracuse Right-To-Life Association, are “defenseless human beings.” He added: “And right now the government is going to let them be killed.”
Meanwhile, supporters are rallying for a limitless availability of stem cells of all kinds. And recently, the upper-hand has gone to the stem-cell supporters.
In a significant victory for supporters of stem-cell research, President Barack Obama in early March lifted restrictions on federal funding of research using embryonic stem cells. The restrictions had been put in place by an executive order by President George W. Bush in 2001. The restrictions limited embryonic-based research to a small number of pre-existing stem-cell lines.
Obama’s order will increase the availability of embryonic stem cells and has the National Institutes of Health working to develop new guidelines for embryonic-based research.
The value of embryonic stem cells in research, says Peter Brink, the Stony Brook scientist, is their ability to grow into any kind of cell. Stem cells could eventually repair or replace organs damaged by illnesses without the side effects that come with most of the treatments and drugs used today, he said.
Here are some statistics on some of the diseases researchers hope stem cells may treat:
Cancer
It is the second leading cause of death in the U.S., killing more than 500,000 people a year. It kills over 35,000 people annually in New York state. Stem cells, researchers say, could be used to replace bad cells and tissue that cause cancer.
Diabetes
It is the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S., killing more than 75,000 people a year. It kills over 4,000 people annually in New York state. Stem cells, researchers say, could regenerate cells in the pancreas that create insulin, a hormone that allows the body to metabolize sugar. Insufficient insulin and high levels of blood sugar can cause multiple ailments including nerve damage, kidney failure and blindness.
Alzheimer’s
It is the seventh leading cause of death in the U.S., killing more than 71,000 people a year. It kills over 2,000 people annually in New York state. Stem cells, researchers say, could help repair degenerated brain tissue, restoring the brain’s ability to retain new memories.
The life-saving potential of the research has supporters drawing a firm line against any kind of restrictions. The Alzheimer’s Association, for example, is one of those groups. “When it comes to science, the only limits are the limits we place on it,” said Jared Paventi, director of communications for the Alzheimer’s Association in Central New York. Anything that will rid the world of some of these horrifying conditions, he says, is worth exploring.
“I’ve seen people that don’t even recognize their own children and loved ones because of Alzheimer’s,” Paventi said. “These diseases hurt everyone, and we should put as much effort as we can into trying to stop them.”
But right-to-life groups argue that the hope to save a life comes at the expense of ending another. Opponents of the research say that the embryos are unborn children and destroying them for stem cells is murder.
“The unborn is still a human being,” said Lewis Ragonese of the Syracuse Right-to-Life Association. “And the death of an unborn child will not lead to these great scientific breakthroughs.”
Ragonese, and others opposed to embryonic stem-cell research, argue that harvesting stem cells from other sources could provide the same possibilities as embryonic cells. There have been few favorable results from embryonic-based research, he says, and it seems irrational to continue using human embryos.
“We can get stem cells from adult skin tissue and other sources,” Ragonese said. “They have infinite potential.” But by continuing with embryonic stem-cell research, Ragonese said, “We still pick an approach that is morally questionable.”
The lack of results, researchers counter, is because the use of embryonic stem cells is still in its infancy. President Obama’s order will help further research using embryonic-derived cells, they remind.
Obama’s decision opens more issues in the debate, says Samuel Gorovitz, a medical ethicist at Syracuse University and a member on the Empire State Stem Cell Board. The board was created by New York state to allocate money for stem-cell programs within the state.
With more stem-cell lines for research, suggested Gorovitz, the use of government funding for the research will become a major part of the debate. “People say that it’s not right to use public money to support what is strongly opposed by some segments of the public,” Gorovitz said.
Polls show Americans’ ambivalence about stem-cell research. The majority of the public supports embryonic-based research. But a large portion still opposes the destruction of embryos. In one recent survey, for example, 32 percent of respondents opposed destroying embryos to harvest stem cells. The poll was conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The survey also reports that 56 percent of the people favor the research to find new cures for diseases.
Obama’s lifting of the ban has triggered a variety of responses by the states. For example, just days after President Obama’s order lifted the restrictions on embryonic-based research, the Georgia state legislature raced to impose its own restrictions. The state senate passed a bill restricting use of human embryos to research for procreation only. But the bill has halted in the Georgia House of Representatives.
Other states have embraced the research’s potential. New York is among seven states that has created its own programs to fund stem-cell research. In 2007, the state began a program that will spend $600 million on stem-cell research over the next decade. And the day after Obama’s order, Gov. David Paterson announced $101.8 million of new money for stem-cell programs in New York. That brings the state’s tab to over $700 million so far.
In Syracuse, Upstate Medical University recently announced that it will get $6.2 million of that money. It will be spent on updating and renovating the University’s stem-cell laboratory, the university said on its Web site. The renovations will nearly quadruple the size of the laboratory from 900 square feet to 3,500 square feet, making room for new equipment and new jobs.
But the willingness of New York and other states to fund stem-cell research isn’t necessarily a sign that the controversy is ending, said Samuel Gorovitz, the medical ethicist. Traditionally liberal supporters of embryonic stem-cell research and conservative opposition, Gorovitz says, need to find a common ground. They need to become allies, he said.
One area of common ground, Gorovitz suggested, is the exploration of alternative treatments and cures using non-embryonic stem cells.
And researchers agree. “Embryonic stem cells hold an incredible potential,” said Peter Brink, the Stony Brook researcher. “But stem cells should not be the only thing we use – we should explore any method that seems promising.”
Lewis Ragonese, of the Syracuse Right-to-Life Association, also agrees. “I don’t want everyone to think we’re opposed to treating diseases, or even stem-cell research,” he said. “We just don’t want embryonic cells used. There has to be a better way.”
(Mark Banick is a junior newspaper journalism major with a minor in religion.)
-30-
