stem cells

The Stem Cell Debate

The Stem Cell debate is going to take center stage almost immediately after Obama takes office. In fact, as of December 20th, 2008, he has filled his scientific staff with not only experts on climate change, but also with experts in the field of genetics. Thus, it behooves the republican party to have a thorough understanding of the issue...and more importantly, to form on a position consensus.

Definition Of Stem Cells

According to the National Institute Of Health (NIH), Stem cells have two important characteristics that distinguish them from other types of cells. First, they are unspecialized cells that renew themselves for long periods through cell division. The second is that under certain physiologic or experimental conditions, they can be induced to become cells with special functions such as the beating cells of the heart muscle or the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas.

Scientists primarily work with two kinds of stem cells from animals and humans: embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells, which have different functions and characteristics. Scientists discovered ways to obtain or derive stem cells from early mouse embryos more than 20 years ago. Many years of detailed study of the biology of mouse stem cells led to the discovery, in 1998, of how to isolate stem cells from human embryos and grow the cells in the laboratory. These are called human embryonic stem cells.

Human Embryonic Stem Cells have unique characteristics in that they are unspecialized, they are capable of dividing and renewing themselves for long periods, and that they can give rise to specialized cells through a process called differentiation. It is this differentiation process that can be used to create specialized cells which form the basis for replacement or regenerative therapies.

The Issue

It is widely believed by the scientific community that theoretically, Human Embryonic Stem Cells can be used to form the basis in providing cures to many of the advanced ailments of the human condition. The problem politically however, is that the only way to obtain Human Embryonic Stem Cells is through extraction of a fertilized embryo from a woman's utereus; in other words, through Abortion. And we, as republicans, are adamantly against this.

However, one cannot ignore the great healing potential that the Stem Cell approach could offer. So much so, that if successful, Stem Cell therapy can literally be categorized as something that contributes to the betterment of mankind...right up there with penicillin, the Polio vaccine, the Malaria vaccine, and all the other great medicinal breakthroughs.

So on one hand, we have an abortion...and on the other hand, we have the potential to cure that little kid with bone cancer, or that father of four who was paralyzed due to Multiple Schlerosis. Which do we choose? The saving of a life or the taking of a life for the betterment of humanity.

Indications And Current Perception

The 2008 election has indicated that the majority of the citizenry is for Stem Cell research simply through election of a candidate who has stated in no uncertain terms that he is adamantly in support of such research. The issue was clearly not a disqualifier for the majority of the electorate. And because of this, it can also be deduced that anyone, or any group that opposes Stem Cell research will be regarded as against the betterment of humanity.

By being against stem cell research, we, the republican party risk being seen as the ones who don't want the Michael J. Fox's to stop experiencing those violent tremors. We'll be seen as the ones who don't want the Christopher Reeves and others with devastating spinal cord injuries to get up and walk. And we'll be seen as the ones who don't want to help the young experiencing the leukemias and other life threatening diseases. In other words, we'll become the party of the cruel. And that alone will turn others off to our message both now and in the future; especially if success is achieved with Stem Cell reasearch.

Can We Ever Get On Board With Stem Cell Research?

Being against the eradication of the ravages of disease is not a popular position. Since elections are all about popularity, it might behoove our party to find ways to get on board with Stem Cell research.

It is widely understood that the conservative christian component of our party is the most vocal and the most adamantly opposed to Stem Cell research. In their mind, Stem Cell research is an abortion, plain and simple...and they are right. It is the taking of a life. But could this issue be reframed such that it can at least get an important part of our party to open up to the idea; if only for a limited but not full time basis?

Sacrifice For The Betterment Of Mankind. Does That Thought Process Make Stem Cell Research Viable?

The bible has taught the concept of sacrifice through the story of Abraham in the old testament and most definitely through the story of Jesus in the New Testament. The bible also teaches the concept of healing and also answers the question as to whether or not we should be messing with this advanced stuff through the parable of the ten talents. So does this thought process open up some wiggle room on this issue for our conservative christian friends?

If so, then the issue further breaks down into an issue of ratios. i.e. what is the acceptable number of lives that can be positively affected / saved by the taking of a single life that exists within that fertilized human embryo?

Guarding Against The Pitfalls Of Supply And Demand

Since Stem Cell research is going to take place, what I believe we all can agree on is that we don't want the number of abortions that are going to take place to become a function of supply and demand. That is, we don't want all these research firms to be offering huge sums of money for the fertilized embryos. We don't need a bidding war and we don't want abortions to become like the modern day practice of giving blood for a fee. That should be non-negotiable. And, I believe there is a good moral basis for this in the minds of everyone whether pro or con on the abortion issue.

Furthermore, Stem Cell research is still just a theory. We need to loudly remind everyone of that. This might buy us some temporance on the abortions performed to "stock" the research shelves. Being the moral majority on the issue might hold water in the minds of all. The opposition knows our position. They'll understand our watchdog mentality on the issue. In fact, they'll expect it. Transparency of the research MUST be provided.

Publicly Stating We're On Board....For Now....

Is it better to be included than excluded from the process. If we're seen as divisive on this issue, we'll be excluded and we won't get any say. We need voice and thus we need to be perceived as part of the solution. I personnaly believe that we can't afford to be marginalized on this issue.

With the recent coverage of President-elect Obama's intent on reversing President Bush's executive order that limited the majority of embryonic stem cell research from receiving federal tax dollars, I thought it was a good time to review the political history, discuss the terminology and basic information regarding stem cells.

In terms of a bit of history, President Clinton was the first president who could have permitted federal funding on embryonic stem cell research, but he did not. President Bush was the first to allow federal funds to be used on a limited amount of embryos for embryonic stem cell research, embryos which had already been destroyed and stem cell lines created from those embryos

Most people, including myself until recently, do not know the difference between embryonic and adult (or somatic) stem cells. Taking a step back, all stem cells are unique since they repair damage organs and rebuild vital tissues in our bodies. They do this by multiplying and transforming into new healthy cells - this is the "regenerative" aspect of stem cell medicine.

Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, which means they can be grown in the lab and become any type of cell, and they have the potential to divide an unlimited number of times. Adult stem cells are multipotent, meaning for example, that a bone stem cell could be grown in the lab to make more bone skin cells, or a blood stem cell could be grown in the lab to make blood stem cells, so they are limited in their flexibility compared with embryonic stem cells. However advances have shown that adult stem cells have been able to be coaxed into forming different stem cells therefore may have more pluripotent stem cell capabilities like embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells to date have had limited success in animal tests and has yet to produce a single viable treatment in humans. For that matter, they have not yet been safe enough to enter into any human clinical trials. One difficulty is because of their pluripotency, they become disorganized and produce teratomas (tumors) that lead to cancer. Also because embryonic stem cells come from another human, there is the risk of immune rejection.

Adult stem cells, which include umbilical cord blood stem cells, have provided benefits in over 70 diseases based on peer-reviewed published reports. From helping people with brain cancer, diabetes, spinal cord injury, heart disease, Parkinson's, sickle cell anemia, lupus and others. An adult stem cell treatment recently cured a man with multiple sclerosis and he has been MS free for 5 years now. The advantage of adult stem cells is that they do not form teratomas, and often the stem cells used to treat the patient are their own, therefore avoiding any immune rejection issues, and there is no big money involved.

Why make this last statement? Because what is unknown from most conversations is that embryonic stem cells is driven by money as much as it is driven to find cures. In 2004, Proposition 71 in California allocated $3 billion for embryonic stem cell research and cloning, which helped fuel new companies within this space, but both startups and larger companies are involved in this chase for a golden egg.

Curiously, another unknown in this debate is the need for human eggs for this embryonic and cloning research. Most eggs are donated by IVF (in vitro fertilization) patients, but a growing source are young healthy women. How are these young women enticed to donate their eggs? Money. Ads are placed on college campuses stating $50,000 or $100,000 for egg donations. This is why feminist organizations have voiced a great concern that women will be sought out has embryo farms. Alarmist?

Just consider that sometimes 100 eggs are necessary to obtain one embryonic stem cell line. If a cure is ever discovered through embryonic stem cells, imagine how many eggs it would take to cure 100,000 people. 10,000,000 eggs. Let's simplify it and say 10 eggs. 1,000,000 eggs. 1.5 million Americans have Parkinson's disease, so to "cure" them it would take 15 million eggs. All from IVF? Of course not. Young women in America. If feminist and other organizations wise up, which they will, where do you think the embryonic stem cell industry will look? Third world countries? Of course. Kenya? India? Peru? There have already been two cases of exploitation of women for eggs. First, in South Korea, during the Dr. Hwang fraudulent cloning research scandal, and then in Eastern Europe, where the European Parliament found their young women were being exploited for eggs and issued the, “European Parliament Resolution on the Trade in Human Egg Cells.”

This is not a pro-life or pro-choice issue. This is a very serious women's health issue. Another fact that most people don't know is that to extract eggs for IVF and embryonic stem cell research Ovarian Hyperstimulation is used. This stimulates a woman's body to release more eggs than a normal ovulation cycle would allow. 5, 10 or greater. A result of putting a woman's ovary into hyperdrive can be Overian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS). The changes can even cause death. Ask former Stanford University student, Calla Papademas, about this. After answering an egg donor ad for money, the process caused a stroke, brain damage and left her infertile.

Regardless of your support for embryonic stem cell research or not, we should all seek a minimum of:

1. Providing adequate informed consent. There is none present at this time. Women donating their eggs don't know about the risks. We can’t tell them the risks because, we don't even know the risks involved since there hasn't been any meaningful short or long term studies on the effects of this practice. In addition conflicts of interest within the IVF and scientific community have hindered efforts to protect young women egg donors. They need eggs, and lots of eggs, so it is in their interest to claim the safety of egg donation and down-play any risks.

2. Creation of a national egg donor registry. This is needed at a bare minimum, to begin tracking and monitoring women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Similar to the current organ donation registry, which tracks and monitors all organ donors, egg donors deserve the same type of follow-up.

What's unfortunate is that the battle for embryonic stem cell search was led by big money. Most of the state propositions that passed were misleading because they did not discuss the serious women's health issues involved. Also they stated that human cloning would not be involved, which 90% of Americans are against. It was a twisting of words since cloning is used in the process to create embryonic stem cells from cloned human embryos. Using cloned embryos is key to avoiding the immune rejection problems. Ask medical experts such Stanford University's Dr. William Hurlbut, or others outside of the IVF and embryonic stem cell industry. Last, if you notice the wording on some of the propositions, they discuss the success of "stem cell" treatments. As stated earlier, the only successes have been with adult stem cells, which are not under religious controversy, so this was another unethical twisting of facts.

There is a new promise that could eliminate the religious controversy and women's health issues. In 2006, Shinya Yamanaka at Kyoto University in Japan generated the first induced pluripotent stem cells (ISP). They have the promise of embryonic stem cells without all the baggage. In 2007, James Thomson, who interestingly discovered embryonic stem cells, and colleagues at University of Wisconsin - Madison (Go Badgers!) and Shinya Yamanaka and colleagues at Kyoto University in Japan both produced the first human induced pluripotent stem cells. Basically they took adult cells and returned them to an early state similar to embryonic stem cells. It's also interesting to hear the scientists, backed by large funding sources, who previously said that the only focus should be on embryonic stem cell research are now saying to seek all solutions.

If these issues concern you, at a minimum tell people about the women's health issues around embryonic stem cell research. If you want to do more, push for adequate informed consent and a national egg donor registry. Also you can learn more from the Center of Bioethics and Culture here.

Originally posted at Silicon Moon.