President Barack Obama overturned a ban on taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research last week, which combined with a provision in Wednesday’s spending bill, will allow for research on hundreds of existing stem cell lines. Under former President Bush’s policy, federal funding for embryonic stem cell research was banned on all but 21 previously specified stem-cell lines.
Stem cells can be found in almost any multi-celled organism. They are special because they are able to differentiate into any other kind of cell found in the body, and medical professionals have hope that they will some day be able to use this capability to treat many conditions for which we currently have no cure. There are several different types of stem cells, and the type that finds itself the most entrenched in controversy is embryonic stem cells. In order to obtain these stem cells, researchers must collect them from an embryo. This collection process destroys the embryo when it is about five days old.
This is the source of the controversy surrounding this research. Is it ethical to destroy a human embryo used for research, and is it even ethical to use a human embryo for this kind of research? Human embryos are living human beings, differing from the average college student only in their size and their development. At conception, two separate entities, the egg and the sperm, unite to form a single entity, the embryo. At this point, the embryo is a genetically unique being, something completely different than the cells it just came from.
An embryo is growing, so it is alive. An embryo comes from human egg and sperm, so it is human.
Obama’s overturn of Bush’s ban makes it legal for our money to pay for these experiments on these smallest of human beings.
Although there has been research on embryonic stem cells for about ten years, there are no approved treatments or even trials in humans using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn’t it make more sense for this research to be performed on other types of stem cells that don’t carry the ethical dilemma of destroying a human life? Even if the point at which human life begins was debatable, wouldn’t a good way to continue this research be to use adult stem cells found in umbilical cord blood? These stem cells are disposed of regularly as medical waste. Why not use waste rather than human life to experiment on new ways to improve human life and health?
Adult stem cells, like those found in umbilical cord blood, have proven to be successful. One example is of a woman who was thought to be paralyzed after a car accident. Stem cells were taken from her nose and injected into her spine, and she is slowly regaining control of her limbs. Researchers found that stem cells from the spleen contain a protein that was previously thought to only be found in embryos. Another example is an FDA-approved study in which stem cells were taken from bone marrow and injected into the heart, where they differentiated into heart tissue and improved the lives of patients.
These adult stem cells carry all the benefits that many attribute to embryonic stem cells, but with none of the ethical dilemma or protest. In many cases, these stem cells are otherwise thought of as medical waste! If taxpayers’ money must go to fund stem cell research, why not make it research that does not involve taking a human life?
