Stem Cell: A Promise of Hope for the Future?

Stem Cells:

A Promise of Hope for the Future?

Kevin L. Anderson

Biology 101

Dr. Lynn Hinkly

December 18, 2006

During the recent congressional elections, a former television star focused a spotlight on a major debate with his personal plea for federal funding to support stem cell research. Michael J. Fox, shown suffering the gripping effects of the uncontrollable tremors of Parkinson’s disease, was interviewed stating that the present administration was not committing enough resources to research the promise that stem cells might hold. The next day, political news commentators and right wing conservatives denounced Fox’s views as inaccurate and pure speculation. One prominent broadcaster even went so far as to say that he believed that Fox purposely did not take his medication to heighten the visual effects of the disease and sensationalize his plea for further government funds and research. The debate maintained front page coverage on most major media outlets for an entire week.

Researchers have long hypothesized that stem cells may become the basis for treating diseases, such as Parkinson’s, Diabetes, and Heart Disease. Stem cells have two important characteristics that distinguish them from other types of cells. One unique quality of stem cells is that they are unspecialized cells that renew themselves through cell division (National Institutes of Health). The second unique quality of stem cells is that, under certain conditions, they can be turned into specialized cells performing the functions of the cells of human organs. The process by which unspecialized stem cells give rise to specialized cells is called Differentiation (National Institutes of Health).

Researchers seek to learn and control the process of differentiation, believing the new specialized cells will then be able to repair damaged organs. As a part of the research process, cell cultures are grown in the laboratory. Cells are grown in a plastic laboratory culture dish that contains a nutrient broth known as culture medium (National Institutes of Health). Potentially, these lab-grown stem cells could become new cells for the human heart, the pancreas, or other major human organs.

Research has focused on two kinds of stem cells: embryonic and adult stem cells. The history of research on adult stem cells began about 40 years ago during the research on bone marrow. 20 years ago, scientists discovered ways to obtain stem cells from mouse embryos. In 1998, that early research led to the discovery of how to isolate stem cells from human embryos and later grow the cells in the laboratory.

Of the two types of stem cells, the embryonic stem cells are causing the most controversy. These cells come from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, a term for a fertilized egg that is four days old after conception (Reaves). That is the center of the debate. Stem cell research falls right in the middle of the battle over abortion rights. Pro life advocates and religious orthodoxy consider life to begin at fertilization, and equate the creation of a blastocyst for research purposes to murder. Some have likened the stem cell research to the same research that Nazi doctors conducted during World War II (Reaves).

Some research teams are utilizing unfertilized eggs left over from in vitro fertilization, IVF, with the consent of the donors (McManus). Recent polling shows that approximately 72 percent of Americans approved of therapeutic medical research, as long as no cloned babies would result from the research (McManus). Most of these embryos, if not donated for research, would be discarded. Doctors can also pull stem cells from aborted fetuses, with the signed consent from a patient who decided to terminate her pregnancy. This is the most controversial method and has become the main focus from the anti abortion activist.

The debate has caused major political issues for the current administration. Mr. Bush finds himself between two strong forces that delivered the presidency to his party. On one side, you have the conservatives and religious right that have cast a resounding ballot against the issue. On the other side, you have the moderates, including Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, who have cast their lot with the scientific community in favor of continuing research funding. The debate has threatened to break traditional alliances and leave some abortion opponents in uncomfortable positions. For pro life advocates, the cost of such research outweighs any potential benefit. For scientists,