It appears as though a Japanese scientist has found a way to cultivate stem cells from the skin of a live mouse. If true, that would remove the last barrier to principled support of stem cell therapy research among pro-life adherents. Pro-lifers – many, but not all of them operating from religiously formed convictions – objected to the notion of creating one class of human life only for the purpose of destroying it for the potential benefit of another class. For this they were roundly denounced as anti-scientific Luddites.
In First Things, Joeseph Bottums postulates ulterior motives among some stem cell research proponents before asking a fair question:
(Science), in the context of the editorial page of the New York Times, was simply a stalking-horse for something else. In fact, for two something-elses: a chance to discredit America’s religious believers and an opportunity to put yet another hedge around the legalization of abortion. After all, if our very health depends on the death of embryos, and we live in a culture that routinely destroys early human life in the laboratory, no grounds could exist for objecting to abortion.
With these purposes now severed by the Japanese de-differentiation technique, which way will it break?
I hope we find out.
Opposition tends to make the medical researchers work harder to overcome the obstacle. For instance, there are those who will accept medical treatment, but refuse utterly to have blood transfusions. This led to advances in “harvesting” blood during surgery and after conditioning the patient’s own blood, returning it to their body.
The best part is, it’s the patient’s own blood – so there is no prospect of rejection or other problems that happen when other blood is mixed into the picture. These techniques would never have been invented and wouldn’t be helping people now, if there hadn’t been “religious nuts” saying they wouldn’t take blood donated from other people.
I see stem cell research going the same way now – funny how innovative people get when they have their “pet” method blocked. *grin*
Teresa’s right, and so are you, Lex. The interesting thing about using one’s own skin cells to grow replacement organs for those which have failed in one’s body is, there should be no necessity for the lifelong ingestion of immuno-suppressant drugs, which tend to eventually drag down the general health of the drug taker.
If this works out as hoped, it should be a giant step forward for medicine, and for old folks like me who’d still like to have a hand in the game. Want to watch this newest ‘greatest generation’ battle back against the current evil-doers, both at home and abroad.
Marianne Matthews
For the past two months, I’ve been a primary care giver to my dad, who suffered a massive stroke. He is now a hemipelegic, and at 6′3″/230, my 70 year old 5′2″/120 mom can’t even move him from wheel chair to bed, or back (and she was a nurse for 35 years…). The only useful function he can do for himself is eat… my mom, my wife, and I do ALL the rest. The other day, I had to spend 7 hours with him in the ER for possible kidney failure. What’s this got to do with the subject matter? The ER doctor, said to me, “you know, we used to actually die from these types of things.”. His implication was the proverbial “when do we stop” question. I’m all for stem cell research if it saves people who otherwise would live long healthy lives. I question anything that prolongs life beyond a reasonable measure. Just my 2 cents worth…
Lee, I am sorry about your dad.
Your post is a good example of why a living will or advance health care directive is a good thing for all of us to consider.
I’m not sure a health care directive would’ve helped in my dads case, but, I will definitely have one for as many contingencies necessary. It’s good advice. Thanks for your thoughts Michelle. R/Lee
If true, that would remove the last barrier to principled support of stem cell therapy research among pro-life adherents.
Lex,
I think you will note that those pro-life adherents have absolutely no problem with adult stem cell research – and if properly informed never have.
It’s embryonic stem cell research, which causes the death of the embryo, that has been opposed.
Cap’n, et al,
Lee, I, too, am sad to hear about your father. The sort of hope this announcement brings may be too late for him, but others may well benefit.
What encourages me about this news (btw, there was an independent team here in Madison, Wisconsin) is that people suffering from Multiple Sclerosis (as I do) have another ray of hope. I advocate the State Legislature on behalf of the many in this State suffering from MS. Stem cells hold promise for us, but, like Lee’s father, we likely won’t see a cure anytime soon.
This has nothing to do with this post but I wanted to wish you and your family a warm and happy Thanksgiving. Like a lot of us, you have much to say thanks about. Now take another week off..
If this development pans out it is undoubtedly a great thing. It’s undeniably better to not have to harvest these cells from embryos.
However, as someone who did support embryonic stem cell research, I resent Bottums’ claim that it was all just a sham to protect abortion rights. The embryos used for that research were going to be destroyed one way or another — none of them was destined to be born. Is it not better to at least derive some good from them, and perhaps make some people’s lives better? And is that not enough reason to support that research?
Bottums is essentially making an ad hominem attack on his opponents by questioning their motives, instead of addressing their arguments. It’s a cheap rhetorical trick, on the same level as claiming that the Iraq war was ginned up to enrich Halliburton or “for the oil.”
Brian, you make a very important point on existing stores of embryos – one I agree with, even as I personally draw a queasy distinction between those embryos that were overproduced for fertility treatments and those explicitly created in order to be destroyed. I know they look the same, but to me at least they feel different.
But I think if you read Bottums again you’ll find that his target was not so much the folks involved in doing research itself as folks like the editorial staff at the NYT whose pale enthusiasm for other uses of genetic science – as genetically enhanced crops, for example – does not match their ardor for human embryo research. He postulates their enthusiasm for the latter may be tied to their position on abortion.
As I said, I think perhaps we’ll see if he’s right.
Right you are Lex, and put in that context it is a fair point that he makes. Thanks for the correction.
Now let’s just hope this turns out to be a genuine result. This wouldn’t be the first time some trumpeted about a great breakthrough in stem cells, only to have it turn out to be nothing.
The problem with embryonic stem cells has always been two features of a cell started by meiosis – i.e. by the combination of an egg and a sperm cell.
First – as shown by Leonard Hayflick in the 60ies – there is a finite number of cell divisions that can occur without the resultant cell degenerating and fx. turning cancerous. In Hayflicks cultures it was 40-45 times. It is likely that some are genetical deficicient, so the number is much lower. This can be one of the reasons for cancers or other diseases hitting people before their “use by date” has arrived. An appendage to the DNA has been identified as the main? controller in this respect. That this is a problem can be seen in the short life of “Dolly the sheep” – where a.f.a.I.k they did not compensate for this.
The other major problem is immunologic. Each cell – apart from identical twins – is immunological different from any cell derived from another individual. This can be minimized, but NEVER eliminated.
Embryonic stem cells used in clinical experiments are different from the person they get implanted in. Hence the dismal results from the use of stem cells in among others parkinsons disease.
This new research may eventually lead to better results without the problems noted playing a role. – and the ethical issues will be relegated to the question of how much we should interfere in the natural course of life – a much simpler and hopefully easier case for discussion.
peace
Hejde