A good piece in Reason on whether adult stem cells are a viable alternative for the kinds of research currently being done using embryonic stem cells. The essay concludes:
The continuing struggle over stem cell research highlights the dangers of politicizing biomedical science. Various lines of research should be pursued simultaneously in order to have the best chance of discovering effective future treatments. It may well turn out that adult stem cells are good treatments for certain diseases, and embryonic stem cells are better at curing other maladies. Contrary to the claims of bioconservatives, it has never been either adult stem cells or embryonic ones; for the sake of millions of suffering patients, it's both.
It's too bad that adult stem cells are turning out not to be as effective as was originally hoped. They provided a nice work-around for the ethical issues that embryonic ctem cells represent. But I was intrigued by this explanation:
Embryonic stem cells are derived from seven-day old blastocysts (microscopic balls of 150 or so cells). Immune rejection might be handled either of two ways: First, researchers might derive and preserve many lines of stem cells that would genetically match the immune systems of a wide number of patients. Or second, embryonic stem cells might be created to order by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer; that is, by taking a cell nucleus from a patient's cells and inserting it into an enucleated egg to produce a blastocyst from which stem cells of nearly identical genetics could be derived and used for transplant. Since obtaining human eggs is uncomfortable and expensive, researchers hope eventually to decipher the biochemical signals that human eggs use to reprogram mature nuclei into embryonic stem cells. Once this is achieved, physicians would dose a patient's adult cells with the right chemicals, transforming them directly into embryonic stem cells. In the meantime, embryonic stem cells are opposed by pro-life activists, and the House of Representatives has twice passed a bill that would outlaw medical treatments using them.
If we're going to outlaw these things (which I'm not convinced is a good idea, although I'm not convinced it's not) shouldn't we be taking a closer look at how they're harvested? If a technique such as the one described above is developed, I don't see why the use of stem cells produced in that manner would raise the same ethical issues as stem cells derived from a fertilized human egg. Maybe I'm missing something, here. But it seems to me that the former would represent terminating a potential human life, while the latter would not.
That has got to make a difference to at least some of the opponents of stem cell research. Instead of a ban on any use of embryonic stem cells, maybe the law should require that all such research be able to attach this disclaimer:
No potential babies were harmed or prevented in the harvesting of these stem cells.
The everybody's happy, right? I guess the real question is how far away are we from being able to convert adult cells into embryonic stem cells?
Posted by Phil at October 30, 2003 10:27 AM | TrackBack