Hype over embryonic stem cell research continues
Unfortunately the hype of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) continues (April 18 letter) even though intractable problems include formation of tumors (teratomas) and genetic incompatibilities. In July 2007, ES Cell International—which had begun in Singapore 7 years prior with much fanfare—ceased ESCR due to investors losing interest because “the likelihood of having products in the clinic in the short term was vanishingly small” (Science 20 July 2007). In November 2007, ordinary human cells were reprogrammed into embryonic like stem cells. Science rated this its #2 Breakthrough of the Year while TIME rated this 1st among the 10 Best Scientific Discoveries of 2007. In September 2008, researchers at Harvard University overcame “a major obstacle to using a promising alternative to embryonic stem cells, bolstering the prospects of bypassing the ethical and political tempest that has embroiled hopes for new medical treatments.” TIME rated this its #1 Medical Breakthrough of 2008 and Science rated this reprogramming of cells their Breakthrough of the Year in 2008. Meanwhile, there have been no clinical trials using human ESC therapies while the number of clinical trials using adult stem cell therapies, with varying degrees of clinical success treating over 70 diseases, has increased nearly four-fold since August 2006 to 2,498 as of April 18, 2009 (www.clinicaltrials.gov). Slavish support for ESCR reflects an ideology that if science can do something it should, without moral or ethical limitations, and we the public should pay for it. We can do better than that.
A. F. Kertz
Glendale
A few thoughts here. Has adult stem cell research made progress, absolutely. Has embryonic stem cell research, minimally by comparison. Can every scientist study both, it’s illegal in many places. How does the funding compare to the results, well government funding is probably always going to be limited to some extent for embryonic. Then come the ethical question when conducting stem cell research, is it a person. I think the better question is, will it EVER be a person. Many of these embryos are leftovers from invitro fertilization. A doctor might fertilize 20 in the hopes of getting a successful pregnancy. Often he will implant as many as 8 as we learned from Octomom and what happen to the other 12 if it works first time. They sit in a freezer until the parents wish another or forever if they choose not to have another.
My question for you is this, is it more ethical to keep that embryo frozen forever and therefore deny it it’s life than to destroy it in the hopes it might someday help someone?
I remember reading a few years back about companies buying eggs from college students for cash to make embryos. I agree that is wrong, to create for the purpose to destroy. That college student may later regret not being able to have the child that otherwise might have been. But in my view, if the parents of an invitro child wish no more children then that embryo is no better served being frozen, when otherwise it might help another. That choice should be left to the family just as organ donation would be for a minor. If embryonic stems cell research were restricted to that group I believe we all should support it and fund it just like adult stem cells. It gives that embryo purpose where it wouldn’t otherwise have. Someday researchers may encounter a problem that adult stem cells can’t fix and embryonic can but only if embryonic is given a chance to flourish.
The other reality is that stem cells, of any type, have only been isolated for a period of 10 years or so. 10 years is an eyeblink in scientific research. It will take decades to even answer the most basic questions. Don’t rush, if embryonic cells don’t work, then they will be dropped from consideration. To say they don’t work at this point is silly. WE have so much to learn before we can even say we’ve started.
gbones: I’m with you as well. We can argue the ethics of in vitro fertilization another day. The fact is, those frozen embryos DO exist, and no one really knows how long they can live on ice, as it were. If they are thawed out and fail to implant because the freezing damaged them, isn’t THAT a problem too?
Good points, A.F. Kertz. It’s sad that in the ESCR debate, proponents ignore science to advance their political positions.
Didn’t scientists in Britain recently use ESC to create human blood? I’d rather have those frozen embryos helping the blood supply issue, than sitting in the freezer. Also, it has only been a short amount of time for research and with religious people being a pain in the ass at every turn doesn’t help advance it.
Yes Bill, God forbid the religious fanatics have any morals or principles when it’s comes to creating life just to kill it for research.
Then what do you suggest we do with the left over in-vitro embryos? It’s ok to use a bunch of embryos to create one life, or 8 as in recent news, then toss the rest?
Last month British scientist released the results of a 3 year advance medical study in which synthetic human blood was successfully produced through embryonic stem cell research. Britain will now have an unlimited supply of infection-free blood for transfusions which will literally save millions of lives.
In the meantime, our medical research will be limited by the small group of religious fanatics who think Jonah was swallowed by a whale.
How can the letter writer praise the medical scientists and researchers who provide the hope and future possibilities of adult stem cell research…and then turn around and show total distain for the same scientists who believe in the potential for life-saving cures through ESCR?
Religion does strange things to people.