erraticwisdom: Stem Cells

Post

In a time when new disorders are discovered daily, and existing ones are becoming more prevalent, a new line of research is necessary. By far the most promising such line is found in stem cell research which must be more adequately funded and supported to help realize the cures that many doctors say are only a few years away (Stem Cell Information).

Stem cells are a bright light for many people darkened by disease because of their potential to cure or eliminate the disorder rather than suppress it as most drugs currently act. For example, once stem cells have been converted into the desired type, they can be targeted to the area and will eventually replace the damaged cells. This blank slate provided by stem cells can be a cure to many diseases ranging from Type 1 diabetes, and heart disease to Parkinson’s disease and Multiple Sclerosis. However, most of these breakthroughs have been made outside of the United States, in countries such as Italy and Australia where scientists do not face the strict regulation faced here (Stem Cell Information).

The stem cell bill passed in 2001 limited not only government funding for the new technology, but also restricted the research to existing stem cell lines only. While the 60 stem cell lines that were allowed to continue may sound to be enough, at the time of Bush’s speech, only one of these lines was actually usable, and only a dozen are viable today(Stem Cell Facts). Also, all of the approved stem cell lines were prepared using mouse cells and thus pose a risk of contaminating human subjects with mouse viruses (Daniel et al). The bill passed by Bush also killed the expansion of stem cell research by freezing the base of the entire program at its current level and impeded existing projects through inadequate funding for the sole reason of appeasing his constituents while seeming to find a middle ground in the then most divisive issue.

The controversial nature of stem cells is undeniable, but even if there is a remote possibility that the current predictions about stem cells’ uses are true then there is an undeniable need to continue and expand research. Those that oppose the expansion of the stem cell research understandably believe that the destruction of any human embryo is immoral. However, any of the embryos that would be used for research would have already been sentenced to destruction by fertility clinics (Stem Cell Facts). Those opposing research do not describe this as murder although using these marked embryos to save lives is combated violently as immoral.

Another argument made by those opposed to the use of embryonic stem cells is that “adult” stem cells (those extracted from the spinal cord and marrow) can be used instead of those from embryos with the same effect. This is simply not true. Only embryonic stem cells have the ability to divide into every type of cell in the body (totipotent), while “adult” stem cells derived from other sources can only develop into a few types of cells (multipotent) and do not have the vast potential of embryos(Daniel et al.).

While it may not be justifiable to kill a life to save a life, it is reasonable to use those embryos that would otherwise be discarded in an effort to save millions of lives. The potential of embryonic stem cells is beyond comprehension and it is painful to see a gold mine of cures being picked at with toothpicks. The best solution is to increase funding for research and allow for the expansion of the stem cell line base by using the embryos that would have been destroyed. This would not only increase our ability to find cures, but it will also level the research field with countries that have been working unimpeded for years as research in this field may become a major industry in the coming years.

Post Meta

At: 07:38:00 AM
On: July 21
In: Science
By: Tom Fadial

Comments

I am not sure if I am against stem cell research per se; I have a lot of concerns and doubts as to what is its purpose. My main concern is the following: why do we want to prolong lives? Human beings have been having such an impact on this planet resulting in such things as climate change, which not only impacts human beings but all the other organisms that share this planet. The world, now that the Bush Administration has accepted the reality of global warming, is aware of the problem, yet it seems that in the end, man is blinded by short term gains, e.g, economic growth vs preventing a rise in sea levels.

Human beings are living longer than ever, resulting in a situation in industrialized countries where there are more old people than young people. The problem is not as acute in America thanks to immigration, but in Europe, a continent that hasn’t had the same experience vis-à-vis immigration as the US it is a serious problem. Some of the countries even have negative growth rates! By 2050, Germany will have a population of 25 million (currently it has over 80 million), this is not taking into account immigration.

Stem cell research, would only add to this problem. It would allow for people, at least in industrialized nations, to live longer.

So, not only will people living longer affect society in general (as the world greys) but it will also affect the planet. People will live longer, consuming more resources and god knows what other damage they will inflict on the planet.

Darwin’s theory of evolution is fantastic, yet it fails to answer one essential question: why do some organisms live longer than others. In effect, how does nature decide how long a particular species lives? And to this I must add the question, what is the purpose of death (Christianity says that it so that one can go to the Heavenly Kingdom)? Science does not answer this as far as I know. But returning to the question of the life span of a species, it is determined based on the impact that particular species has on the planet? Galapago Turtles live around 200 years, but their impact on the planet is minimal. Trees can live for millennia. At one point, it was normal for human beings to die around their 30s, but then again they create war and consume so many of the planets resources. One of the benefits of stem cell research would be to allow people to live longer, going against nature.

So then, I would have to say that my hesitation to support stem cell research lies in these points I have made, primarily my concern for the planet. We have yet to solve so many problems, yet we want to extend our lives without resolving these.
Juan

Jul 22, 05:22 AM #
"Why do we want to prolong lives?”
That will be the topic of my next article. Thank you for the inspiration.

As for a direct answer in this context, I do not think it is simply about extending lives. I think that everyone should have the opportunity to live a “full” life. Some of the diseases that stem cells can potentially cure severely cripple (either mentally or physically) their victims such that they either die at a younger age (“living” less) or suffer mental damage that leaves only a shell of a human.

Everyone should have the opportunity to live an active and responsive life, and what President Bush is doing is deciding that some people should not be given this chance.

“Darwin’s theory of evolution is fantastic, yet it fails to answer one essential question: why do some organisms live longer than others.”
Actually, that is the root of Darwin’s theory: those that are superior will live longer (evade predators, disease, etc.) and create more offspring; thus creating a new generation of slightly “better” creatures.
Thame

Jul 22, 06:23 AM #
It is true that the knowledge gained from stem cell research can cure diseases that cause people not to live ‘full’ lives, but could it also be argued that these disease arise from the fact that we are living longer and it is one way to balance the increase in life span?

I don’t think you understood my confusion (question) concerning Darwin. Some organisms have a specific life span; I am talking about natural life spans and not taking into consideration the predator dynamic. I just want to know how life spans are decided for species.

I understand the survival of the fittest bit. The strong survive, pass on their genes and so forth leading nto ‘better’ offspring (have sharks reached perfection because they haven’t co-evolved in millions of years). Also, do you think the correct term is co-evolved rather than evolved? I suspect animals have no need to evolve unless other animals change, so they must change too, ergo, co-evolve.
Juan

Jul 22, 06:38 AM #
This debate is so misunderstood. There is no law against stem cell research. The President (and others) are against providing federal funding for the research using new embryos.

If there is such promise in the results, investment bankers and others would be throwing their money in to see who would find the miracle cures first.
Mark

Aug 28, 07:58 AM #
“This debate is so misunderstood. There is no law against stem cell research.”

Yes, that’s true. However, the problem is that there are not enough usable existing embryonic stem cells. It seems that the president is holding back the research because many embryos are being destroyed daily at fertility clinics. There is no real ethical issue here.

“If there is such promise in the results, investment bankers and others would be throwing their money in to see who would find the miracle cures first.”

And this is happening every day in unrestricted countries in Europe, where stem cell research is one of the fastest growing industries.
Thame

Aug 28, 05:40 PM #

Add a Comment

Phrase modifiers:

_emphasis_
*strong*
__italic__
**bold**
??citation??
-~~deleted text~~-
@code@

Block modifiers:

bq. Blockquote
p. Paragraph

Links:

"linktext":http://example.com

erraticwisdom

Post

Post Meta

Comments

Add a Comment

Phrase modifiers:

Block modifiers:

Links:

Archive

Show Articles By:

Conscious Conversation: Philosophy

The Stuff in Between

The Ethics of AI: Part Three

The Ethics of AI: Part Two

The Ethics of AI: Part One

The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

The Atheist's Purpose

Conscious Conversation: Computation

About

The Blog

The Work

Contact

My Stuff