“The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions,” said President Bush in a 2001 speech announcing his policy on embryonic stem cell research. Three years later the discussion and debate has not only increased but is becoming more confusing and contentious. Unfortunately, the complexity of the issue and the peculiar terminology used often prevents many citizens from developing a fully informed opinion on the matter. To help, in some small way, redress that problem, I’ve compiled a brief primer, a “least you need to know” guide”, that helps clarify and explain the questions most frequently asked about stem cell policy.
To those unfamiliar with the topic, this should provide brief non-technical answers to many of the important questions surrounding the policy. For those who are well versed in the controversy, I hope this will be a useful reference source to help you explain the issue to others.
What are stem cells?
The term “stem cells” refers to a diverse group of primitive cells that are themselves relatively undifferentiated and unspecialized. These cells are “multipotent”, meaning they can give rise to several other differentiated and specialized cells of the body (for example, liver cells, kidney cells, brain cells). All specialized cells arise originally from stem cells, and ultimately from a small number of embryonic cells that appear during the first few days of development.
How are stem cells different than other types of cells?
Stem cells have two unique characteristics: (1) an almost unlimited capacity for self-renewal (they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells for as long as the person is alive) and (2) they retain the potential to produce differentiated and specialized cell types. As stem cells within a developing human embryo differentiate within the cell, their capacity to diversify generally becomes more limited and their ability to generate many differentiated cell types also becomes more restricted.
Why are stem cells so important to research?
Stem cells are of interest to both scientific and medical research. First, stem cells provide a valuable tool for studying both normal and abnormal cellular processes. By learning how stem cells differentiate and become specialized, scientists hope to gain a better understanding of how cells in general work and what can go wrong. Second, stem cells may prove to be an indispensable source of transplantable cells and tissues for repair and regeneration. If stem cells can used to produce new and differentiated cells that are damaged because of disease (i.e, Parkinson’s) or injury (e.g., spinal cord damage), it would transform regenerative medicine.
What are embryonic stem cells?
Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are stem cells that have been taken from from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, a preimplantation embryo of about 150 cells. (Embryos are humans in the stage of development between fertilization and the end of the eighth week of gestation whereupon it it referred to as a fetus until the time of birth.)
Where do the embryos for ESC come from?
Currently, all embroynic stem cell lines have been derived from “spare” embryos created from in vitro fertilization (IVF) (i.e., embryos that have been conceived by a combination of egg and sperm occurring outside the body)
What are adult stem cells?
The term “adult stem cells” simply refers to any non-embryonic stem cell, whether taken from a fetus, a child, or an adult. Adult stem cells are also referred to as somatic stem cells.
What is a stem cell “line”?
A stem cell line is a stem cell culture that can be grown indefinitely in the laboratory.
Why is there a controversy over ESC research?
The process of obtaining stem cells leads to the destruction of the embryo from which the cells are taken. For those who believe that life begins at conception, embryo destruction is immoral even when it leads to beneficial research. Even those who do not believe that human embryos are deserving of full moral status worry about what the effects of normalizing such practices may have on society.
Advocates of ESC research, however, argue that it is unethical to impede potential advances that could heal disease and relieve the suffering of fully developed human beings. They believe that the moral status of a 150-to-200-cell early human embryo should not take precedence over responsible scientific inquiry.
Does the Bush administration ban funding of ESC?
No, but the Congress has implemented its own ban. In 1995, Congress attached language to an appropriations bill prohibiting the use of any federal funds for research that destroys or seriously endangers human embryos, or creates them for research purposes. This provision, known as the “Dickey Amendment”, has been attached to the Health and Human Services appropriations bill each year since 1996. This law only prohibits federal funding of such research and does not affect private funding efforts. The federal government neither prohibits nor supports research that involves the destruction of embryos.
If the “Dickey Amendment” bans funding of embryo destruction, how can Bush allow such research to be federally funded?
In 1999, the General Counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services argued that the wording of the law might permit an interpretation under which human embryonic stem cell research could be funded. If embryos were first destroyed by researchers supported by private funding, then subsequent research employing the derived embryonic stem cells might be considered eligible for federal funding. The research would follow the prior destruction of human embryos but would not itself involve that destruction.
President Bush, seeking to find a way to fulfill both the letter and spirit of the law, instituted a policy that made it possible to use taxpayer funding for research conducted on preexisting ESC lines, but would prohibit the funding of any lines created after August 9, 2001, the date of the policy's announcement.
Since the government doesn’t prohibit private funding why does it matter if tax dollars are used for the research?
Besides making and enforcing law, the federal government is a major distributor of resources. When the decision to fund an activity is made, it is an official declaration of national support for an activity. When something is done with public funding, it is done, so to speak, in the name of the country, with its blessing and encouragement. Because there is no general consensus on the morality of ESC research, the federal government has chosen to withhold its full support even though it does not wish to entirely prohibit the activity.
How many ESC lines meet the criteria for federal funding?
The National Institute of Health believes that there are seventy-eight lines that meet the criteria for federal funding. The include lines held by universities, companies, and other entities throughout the world. Although all of these lines are deemed eligible for funding, not all are presently available for use by researchers. In the fall of 2003, only twelve lines were available for use.
Are there any restrictions on adult stem cell research?
No. Because there are no moral issues surrounding that type of research, adult stem cells are available for funding. In fact, the NIH allocated over $170 million to the field in fiscal year 2002, and approximately $181.5 million in fiscal year 2003 for adult stem cell research.
Sources:
Monitoring Stem Cell Research, The President's Council on Bioethics (January 2004)
Stem Cell Information, National Institutes of Health
2
BTW, slightly OT but still a science topic, a new find has been announced in human evolution. And if this is not a hoax and the information I'm seeing is accurate, then it's the biggest thing since A afarensis (Lucy). And maybe even bigger.
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/1454/
posted on 10.27.2004 6:09 PM3
Nice job of identifying the issues without passing judgment.
posted on 10.27.2004 6:42 PM4
A friend of mine who was preparing a talk on this topic a couple weeks ago is undoubtedly disappointed that you didn't post this earlier, Joe! Well done.
"Because there is no general consensus on the morality of ESC research, the federal government has chosen to withhold its full support even though it does not wish to entirely prohibit the activity."
Offhand, I can't think of a more compelling argument to support the Bush Admin's position.
posted on 10.27.2004 8:57 PM5
Your article is a good start. I can see your attempt to show all sides of this issue, but you missed some important points that are often overlooked, but necessary to a primer on the subject.
Your answer to the question "Why does it matter if tax dollars are used for the research?" suggests that it only matters because federal funding would mean federal approval. But there are actually several other reasons why it matters, that you fail to mention:
1. While private companies have shown initiative in forming their own ethical review boards, federal funding under the auspices of NIH would provide the most transparent, public, and rigorous oversight of stem cell research. NIH guidelines have been thoroughly and publicly vetted, and would trigger a number of other federal oversight guidelines already in place.
2. Privately funded embryonic stem cell research may be limited to discovering just those applications with the most commercial appeal, for just the most widespread diseases, and in a very focused manner. Federal funding would allow for more basic-level research, and in more laboratories - especially by academic scientists. The potential benefits across a broader spectrum, and a better understanding of the basics of stems cells, would be more likely with federal funding.
These important benefits of federal funding should not be overlooked.
posted on 10.28.2004 9:21 AM6
You might add a section on umbilical stem cells. My wife and I chose to save our son's umbilical blood through Cord Blood Registry. It contains stem cells useful for certain treatments and research. There seem to be some limits to the usefulness of umbilical stem cells. Nevertheless, there would be an abundant supply if more people saved cord blood.
posted on 10.28.2004 10:26 AM7
"a new find has been announced in human evolution. And if this is not a hoax and the information I'm seeing is accurate, then it's the biggest thing since A afarensis (Lucy). And maybe even bigger."
--
A little information about "Lucy" for those unfamiliar with the reference:
‘Lucy’ is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton found in 1974 in Ethiopia by American anthropologist Donald Johanson. To many people, Lucy is regarded as a certain link between ape-like creatures and man—thus supposedly proving evolution. But is Lucy really a pre-human ancestor?
According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris’. Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.
In reinforcement of the fact that Lucy is not a creature ‘in between’ ape and man, Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):
‘The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been’.
Oxnard’s firm conclusion? ‘The australopithecines are unique.’
Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.
Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of ‘missing link’ status.
###
Full article at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/lucy.asp
posted on 10.28.2004 12:21 PM8
"To many people, Lucy is regarded as a certain link between ape-like creatures and man—thus supposedly proving evolution."
Har. I love these anti-evolution posts by people who haven't a clue.
Please show me where an anthropologist claimed that Lucy "proved evolution." This shouldn't be difficult for you, as there are "many people" who allegedly hold this belief. Surely one of them is a credible scientist in the relevant field.
posted on 10.28.2004 1:23 PM9
Lord -
Learn to read - the post from Lucy does not claim that the "many people" she refers to includes anthropologists. There are any number of instances in which "many people" believe something that no specialist believes; what is wrong with providing those non-specialists with facts that may eliminate a misunderstanding?
posted on 10.28.2004 4:27 PM10
Ward Cleaver aka Hugh Beaumont advises me to
"Learn to read - the post from Lucy does not claim that the "many people" she refers to includes anthropologists."
Agreed. I never suggested otherwise. I just assumed that one of the "many people" who had an opinion on Lucy might just have a background in anthropology. I am highly dubious that any of them made a statement such as that suggested by Lucy's comment, that the fossil Lucy "proved evolution." Hence, my challenge.
"There are any number of instances in which "many people" believe something that no specialist believes"
You ain't kidding about that!
"what is wrong with providing those non-specialists with facts that may eliminate a misunderstanding?"
Nothing. Nothing at all. But it is wrong to spout off fake comments allegedly made by "many people" who aren't qualified to have an opinion, and then pass those comments off as fact. That is what "Lucy" did in his/her comment above. I took it upon myself to point out the problem. And yes, you're welcome.
posted on 10.28.2004 4:52 PM