Posted on 12/18/2006 10:24:13 PM PST by neverdem
Associated Press
Research on embryonic stem cells continues to ignite national debate over the beginning of human life. And with the Legislature likely to take up the issue in its next session, many worry that inaccurate information is being perpetuated by stem cell proponents and their counterparts.
Dr. David Crouse, who oversees some stem cell research at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, said both sides are "overselling wares."
The sentiment is shared by Chip Maxwell, executive director of the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research. That group supports stem cell research, but not the kind involving embryos.
Maxwell said he is all for the free flow of ideas but that information should have balance. "I hope that the whole picture is explained," he said.
From a scientific standpoint, stem cells are building blocks that can turn into different types of tissue, such as kidney or liver cells. Research is being conducted on two types of stem cells — adult and embryonic — in hopes that they can lead to cures for diseases.
Adult stem cells can be found in bone marrow and umbilical cord blood, among other sources. Embryonic stem cells are derived from human embryos in their earliest stages of development.
Embryonic stem cells in particular have made headlines, as scientists attempt to harness them to regenerate damaged organs or other body parts. They're essentially a blank slate, able to turn into any tissue given the right biochemical instructions.
But from an anti-abortion standpoint, human embryonic stem cell research is immoral, because isolating the cells destroys embryos, what some believe is the starting point of human life. Anti-abortion advocates cite the same argument in opposing abortion.
"The beef is that there is no question that embryos are destroyed in the harvesting of stem cells," Maxwell said. "Now you are destroying a human being."
Many scientists disagree. Crouse, who specializes in embryonic stem cells, said it boils down to a difference in perspective about when human life begins.
He said, "There is no baby, no abortion."
In fact, Crouse said, the embryos that are used are essentially medical waste.
Most embryonic stem cells used in U.S. research come from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization — where a woman's eggs are fertilized outside the womb and the resulting embryos are implanted in the uterus. If the embryos are not implanted, they are typically destroyed.
"If it's unethical to destroy an embryo," Crouse asked, "why is it so much more evil to use a stem cell for a good purpose?"
Maxwell said that rationalization is simply intended to ease people's fears about using embryos.
The small number of embryos left from in vitro fertilization cannot satisfy the needs of the scientific community, and scientists will one day want to create embryos for use in research, according to his coalition.
Where the two men agree is in their frustration over false promises of medical breakthroughs from embryonic stem cell research. Crouse and Maxwell said many people have been led to believe those stem cells will lead to cures for diseases, such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, in the near future.
In reality, the earliest results from embryonic stem cell research is five to 10 years down the road, Crouse said.
"With a cloud of political debate, there's not been a lot of progress," he said.
More research has been conducted on adult stem cells, which were discovered in the 1960s. There are commonly used today in bone marrow transplants.
In contrast, embryonic stem cells were first derived in 1998.
Crouse also said that opponents of embryonic stem cell research make weighty claims about the medical benefits of adult stem cells.
A July 2006 article in the journal Science refuted claims that there were 65 treatments that utilize adult stem cells. In truth, the article stated, there are seven.
"A great deal of research needs to be done," Crouse said.
There are 72 adult stem cell treatments or in FDA approved clinical trials, IIRC. Any more authoritative sources would be appreciated.
National Institutes of Health - Stem Cell Information - Executive Summary
SC Ping
Oh, I get it now. They are medical waste. More doublethink. I have a right to my opinion as to where I draw my line in the sand. I do not care if it is scientific or not. I agree with the Catholic church on this one. Opponents of embryonic stem-cell research, imo, are destined to lose. What will be next?
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
if ever. Crouse makes it sound like results are guaranteed.
Far from proving that embryonic stem-cell acquisition is no big deal, this makes the point that some IVF methods ALSO propagate murder of the unborn and ought, therefore, be considered reprehensible. There is a method of IVF that does NOT result in the mortality of embryos; this method ought be utilized with total exclusivity.
"If it's unethical to destroy an embryo," Crouse asked, "why is it so much more evil to use a stem cell for a good purpose?"
It is more evil because, in order to GET the stem cell in the first place, an embryo MUST be MURDERED. Immorality is not justified simply by using the products of immoral acts in the pursuit of some supposedly-noble cause; far less in the pursuit of some unproven medical red herring.
It is more evil because the willingness to destroy human life in the pursuit of politically-corect-and-government-funded research in a complete absence of promising results reveals that the motive is no more noble than money at the expense of human lives.
It is more evil for the same reason that it is manifestly evil to murder someone with a chainsaw so as to give their kidneys and liver to persons waiting for donor organs.
Maxwell said that rationalization is simply intended to ease people's fears about using embryos.
No, Maxwell, I'm afraid it is worse than that, and it goes to the very heart of the whole debate: the false notion that it is somehow noble to destroy these humans over here, in order to play with their parts in hopes of discovering a means of saving those humans over there; all the time proceding without the most basic of assurances that any of it will yield anything other than the murder of these humans here.
Dr. Joseph Mengele would be EVER so proud.
If many can't find anything better to do than that many need to get a real job and stop writing fairy tales for the AP.
And all of this is done with your tax dollars!
Bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.