PerspectivesAre you interested in submitting a Perspective Article? Be sure to read The Science Advisory Board's Editorial Guides for Perspective Articles. Click here. The Debate: Stem Cell Research by Clark D. Hinderleider, M.D., Ph.D. This perspective piece (written by our current member spotlight and 2007 SAB Steering Committee member) was originally posted in The SAB Science, Politics and Ethics blog. It is intended to express one members perspecitve and prompt debate or discussion among others. If you haven't already gotten a chance to take a look, please read and share your comments either with in the blog, or in the main discussion forumsdiscussion forums. Opponents of stem cell research are quite simply wrong, scientifically, philosophically, and morally. The political ploy of August, 2001—the restrictive and morally inconsistent policy of the Bush administration supported by only a fundamentalist few—has created a medieval, anti-intellectual stance on all scientific research involving stem cells. There is a continually evolving knowledge base, which must be considered in rethinking the current rules. The cell mass used for harvesting pluripotent cells is just replicating DNA, and there is no compelling reason, especially on the part of the state, either to conserve or to preserve this. Is it necessary to note that current law allows the destroying of “excess embryos” from fertility procedures and that proscribing their use in research is, de facto, contrary to statute? The discarded blastocysts from IVF far exceed current research needs. The term “embryonic” is a histological not a legal definitive. To use multipotent adult progenitor cells has both physiological and technical constraints which make it substantially less suitable. Indeed, their plasticity and the concept of transdifferentiation need more intensive investigation: it is unreasonable to limit the type or source of stem cells. Likewise, any proposal to create “politically correct” stem cell, e.g., ANT, makes neither scientific nor economic sense. The currently available cells lines are few and have no therapeutic value as they have been cultured with nonhuman mammalian cells, by definition xenogeneic. Any definition of humanness includes developmental attributes that cannot, in any mode, be assigned to a blastocyst created by somatic cell nuclear transfer—the proper and accurate term for “therapeutic cloning.” A sentient human being is not, even in the most ardent leap, reducible—except ad absurdum—to a sphere of dividing cells. To endow a collection of cells in a Petri dish with human rights defies common sense. To elevate its protection above the needs of medical research that will save millions of patients is unconscionable and shows a profound disrespect for human life. Current and historical literature—including that from religious philosophers—proves this. Finally, the absence of implantation—sine qua non for the development of an embryo—renders the point moot. No cognizant and informed person can deny that stem cell scientific enquiry will, with time, result in expertise and therapy that one can only imagine. The progression of research and science will eventually provide transcendent directions based on well-investigated hypotheses. Any opinion to the contrary has no merit in fact or theory. Fanciful musing about the process or product of such investigations remains just that. To deny such findings to the body of medical knowledge on the basis of a parochial interpretation of translations of not contemporaneous historical texts is morally and ethically indefensible. One does note that in major religions and mainstream sects, including Judaism and Islam, personage begins about a month after conception. Even in Catholicism before the pronouncement of Pius IX in 1869, a soul did not reside—the sine qua non to determine if a human life is destroyed?until weeks after conception, cf. Genesis 2:7. Religiosity has no role in scientific enquiry. It should be noted that the survey from the Genetics and Public Policy Center (Johns Hopkins University), supported by Nisbet’s paper, shows that a clear majority of religious groups, including two-thirds of Catholics, favor stem cell research. The single exception was fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, who were divided—50% approving and 48% disapproving. Combined with the above publications, the Pew Center’s and the Virginia Commonwealth University’s data also demonstrate that up to 72% of Americans support embryonic stem cell research. Forty percent (40%) does favor expanded government support for such research, while only 22 % support the Bush administration’s restrictive policies. A mere 16% would favor a complete ban. It is no surprise that the better educated and those with more knowledge of the subject support the research. It is informative that 21% of those firmly opposed to stem cell use would alter their positions if a cure, using embryonic stem cells, for a disease as diabetes were discovered. Anyone who states that ESC research has produced no cures ignores two pertinent and compelling facts: the federal prohibitions have materially slowed the research and the few lines available cannot be used in therapy for humans. The approval represented by the poll results had the US House, in a victory for reason, passing their bill liberalizing policy; a version was introduced in the Senate. The Republican majority leader, Frist of Tennessee, on 18 July 2001 announced that he supported federal funding but bowed to the Republican Party’s doctrinaire line. Four years later, 29 July 2005, he again reversed himself and spoke in support of more funding—if this does not prove to be disingenuous. Frist remains a severe disappointment to the medical community and clinician-scientists. It is unfortunate, at best, that other physicians in the US Congress, such as Weldon of Florida, have chosen to put their personal agenda and partisan loyalty above their sworn duty to be advocates for their patients. There is a polarization of opinion regarding this issue, which adds to already difficult task of approving a rational plan for the facilitation and funding of the necessary research. In an affront to evidence based knowledge, some opponents rely on specious presentations in an attempt to carry their points. In the current administration, starting in the White House and disseminated through functionaries as John Marburger, Office of Science and Technology Policy, there is a pattern of distortion and suppression of scientific evidence and analysis, which constitutes a disregard for the public trust. “Without informed scientists’ perspectives, we risk making bad policies…” [Maienschein] Under Bush message is confused with fact, and ideology is allowed to trump science to the detriment of progress. The nearly unanimous consensus of the informed and involved participants in this research endeavor has been communicated to the politicians, whose nescience remains an impediment to the research with its promise of advancing to the cure of disease and to the saving of millions of patients’ lives. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the respondents favored and 30% opposed the statement: “It would be terrible if cures were delayed because of policies that make embryonic stem cell research difficult.” Fifty-four percent (54%) agreed with the statement: “If the federal government does not fund stem cell research from human embryos, the United States will fall behind other countries in terms of leadership in the development of new drugs and preventing disease.” Nobel Laureates have joined other professional people, including members of the President’s Council on Bioethics [v.i., Blackburn], in a concerted effort to educate all facets of public opinion and policy planners. It has been recorded that as individuals become more aware of the stem cell debate, their support rises to 68% from 32%. The responsible members of US Congress have considered the issue of stem cell research and funding and have approved The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (HR 810/SB 471). Other disingenuous bills offered by dissembling authors, e.g., Santorum, which are for the express and single purpose of obfuscation, were unreservedly rejected. The American public deserves and demands action. It is important to remind all that the electorate has more than enough votes to overturn the veto and recall those who support it. Attached is a minimal bibliography for your information. An extensive one is available upon your request. Clark D. Hinderleider, MD Clark D. Hinderleider, M.D., Ph.D. Secretary, Clinician-Scientists for the Public’s Weal Instructor of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery Mount Sinai School of Medicine, CUNY Clinical Adjunct, Department of Physiology Contributing Editor, Science Advisory Board Contributing Editor, Center for the Future of Medicine Member, The Learning Curve International Advisory Board Member; Center on Science, Technology, and Space; Roosevelt Institution Member, Union of Concerned Scientists Member, Congressional Liaison Committee (JSCPP) Member, Alliance for Stem Cell Research Bibliography Blackburn, E, “Bioethics and the Political Distortion of Biomedical Science,” New England Journal of Medicine, 350(14):1379, 2004 Blackburn, E. and Rowley, J., “Reason as Our Guide,” PLoS Biology, 2(4):e116, 2004. Brownlee, C, “Researchers pursue a controversial technique intended to cure diseases by transplanting custom-made cells,” Science New Online, 2 April 2005 Committee on Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, National Research Council, Guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005 Drazen, JM, “Legislative Myopia on Stem Cells,” NEJM, 349(3): 300, 2003 __________, “Embryonic Stem-Cell Research—The Case for Federal Funding,” NEJM, 351:1789, 2004 Editor,. “No consensus on stem cells,” Nature, 428:587, 2004 _____, “Science under attack,” Nature, 439:891, 2006 Fischbach, GD, et al., “Stem cells: science, policy, and ethics,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, 114:1364, 2004 Hampton, T, “Animal Studies Show Stem Cells’ Promise, “ JAMA, 292:2202, 2004 Greely, HT, “Moving Human Embryonic Stem Cells from Legislature to Lab: Remaining Legal and Ethical Questions,” PLoS Medicine, 3(5):e143, 2006 Gross, L, “Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology,” PLoS Biol, 4:e167, 2006 Hinxton Group, “Consensus statement on stem cells, ethics and law,” 24 Feb 2006 Jaenisch, R, “Human Cloning—The Science and Ethics of Nuclear Transplantation,” NEJM, 351:2787, 2004 Javitt, GH, et al., “Cloning: A Policy Analysis,” Genetics and Public Policy Center, April, 2005 Johns Hopkins Medicine Press Release, “Panel: Clinical Use of Embryonic Stem Cells Jeopardized by Bush’s Policy on Federal Funding,” 10 November 2003 Jones, DA, Soul of the Embryo: An Enquiry into the Status of the Human Embryo in the Christian Tradition, Continuum, UK, 2004, ISBN: 0-826-46296-0 “Keeping Stem Cell Guidelines Current,” The Scientist, News, 4 May 06 Kissling, F, “The place for individual conscience,” Journal of Medical Ethics, 27:24, 2001 Loscalzo, J, “The NIH Budget and the Future of Biomedical Research,” NEJM, 354:1665, 2006 Maienschein, J, Whose View of Life? Embryos, Cloning and Stem Cells, Harvard University Press, 2003 P.2 Biblio Maitra, A, et al., “Genomic alterations in cultured human embryonic stem cells, “ Nature Genetics, AOP, 4 Sept 05, doi:10.1038/ng1631 Meissner, A, Jaenisch, R, “Generation of nuclear transfer-derived pluripotent ES cells from cloned Cdx2-deficient blastocysts,” Nature, 429:212, 2006 Nisbet, MC, “Public Opinion About Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 68:131-54, 2004 PCBE, “White Paper: Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells,” May, 2005 Perry, ACF, “Progress in Human Somatic-Cell Nuclear Transfer,” NEJM, 353:87, 2005 Porter, JE, “Federal Funding and Supportive Policies for Research,” JAMA, 294:1385, 2005 Sandel, MJ, “Embryo Ethics—The Moral Logic of Stem-Cell Research, “ NEJM, 251:207, 2004 Schiermeier, Q, et al., “Critics blast ‘premature’ paper on adult stem cells,” Nature 429:590, 2004 Shenfield, F, “Semantics and ethics of human embryonic stem-cell research,” Lancet, 365:2071, 2005 Sinskey, AJ, “The Consequences of Limiting Stem Cell Research: Health and Economic Considerations.” Pharmaceutical Discovery, 5:22, 2005 Solter, D, “Politically Correct Human Embryonic Stem Cells?” NEJM, 353:2321, 2005 Spar, D, “The Business of Stem Cells, NEJM, 351:211, 2004 Stojkovic, M, et al., “Derivation of a human blastocyst after heterologous nuclear transfer to donated oocytes,” Reproductive and BioMedicine Online, Article # 1872, 19 May 2005 Vats, A, et al., “Stem Cells,” The Lancet, 366:392, 2005 Vogel, G, “Developmental Biology: More Data But No Answers on Powers of Adult Stem Cells,” Science, 305:27, 2004 ________, “Embryo-Free Techniques Gain Momentum,” Science, 309:240, 2005 Weissman, I, “Stem Cell Research,” JAMA, 294:1359, 2005 ___________, “Politic stem cells,” Nature, 439:145, 2005 Wooley, M, et al., “Public Attitudes and Perceptions About Health-Related Research,” JAMA, 294:1380, 2005 Zerhouni, E, “Enhanced: Stem Cell Programs, “ Science, 300:911-12, 2003 ### << Previous Next >> [ View All Perspectives ] |
|