|
Meera Atkinson  Stem cell research is one of the most exciting developments in medical research and one of the most controversial issues of our time.
Put simply, a stem cell is an unspecialised cell that is capable of developing into other specialised cells in the body for the purpose of growth or repair. There are different kinds of stem cells — adult, embryonic, and umbilical (collected after birth). The sticky point of stem cell research is that it is the contentious embryonic stem cells which hold the most promise. This is because they can develop into all cell types in the body, whereas adult stem cells cannot. Diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and heart disease that involve tissue degeneration seem set to benefit most from stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cells are found in the very early stages of a fertilised egg. This fertilised egg has only about 100 cells and is called a blastocyst. While recent research has suggested it may be possible to harvest stem cells from a blastocyst without resulting in destruction or injury, it is still considered risky.
Some people suggest stem cells from animals might enable both the continuation of research and therapeutic developments, without involving the human embryo. However, others, including the Australian Association for Humane Research, are quick to point out the many potential problems with this kind of cross-species endeavour such as the possibility of zoogenic disease — disease that jumps from species to species and for which there is no possible screening.
In November 2006 the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 was amended to allow the expansion of stem cell research in Australia. Nevertheless, public opinion on the matter remains divided.
Here we present a “for” and “against” argument regarding the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research.
The case for embryonic stem cell research
Dr Andrew Laslett, BSc Hons PhD, is a senior scientist at the Australian Stem Cell Centre (ASCC) and an honorary senior lecturer in the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology at Monash University.
“The reason I think human embryonic stem cell research is a good idea is that in the future we’ll be able to provide a chance for people who currently don’t have options or a viable medical therapy for their disease or injury.
“Before the recent amendment, researchers were allowed to derive human embryonic stem cell lines and work with human embryonic stem cells in the laboratory. After the act, what researchers are now able to do is to try to perform a technique which no one has been able to do yet — a procedure called therapeutic cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer. It would take a skin cell or another type of adult cell, take the DNA (genetic material) of that cell and put that into a donor egg and that donor human egg would then contain the skin cell’s genetic material. Then it’s grown up into a ball of about 100 cells called a blastocyst and then the inner cell mass is taken out and that is made into a human embryonic stem cell line which can be grown in a dish in a laboratory and studied. This technique potentially gives us a means to study complex disease development in a dish if cells are donated from people with Alzheimer’s, for example. The difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning is that in therapeutic cloning the construct of donor cell and egg is never put back inside a woman: that’s absolutely illegal and not supported by any scientists in Australia.
“Everybody is entitled to their point of view and I respect their point of view. I don’t agree that this is murder in any way, shape or form. What I think we’re doing is taking a ball of cells taken from excess IVF embryos. There are tens of thousands of these embryos stored in facilities all around Australia that will be used for further IVF rounds (a small percentage), stored indefinitely or discarded. By using a small fraction of these embryos for research is providing a huge amount of hope for people who may in the future be able to be cured of diseases or repaired.
“The future in the field is that what we’ve learnt about the human stem cell lines that already exist is helping instruct scientists throughout the world in ways of turning an adult cell into an embryonic-like cell, which might avoid in future the use of embryonic stem cells at all. But without the human embryonic stem cell lines that would never come about. If there’s a fully viable, well-documented alternative, I don’t think anyone would choose to work with human embryos. I say this not because I am morally or ethically opposed to human embryonic stem cell research, but because I understand and respect that it is abhorrent to sections of our community. I have concerns that there may be future barriers to patients taking up potentially life-saving human embryonic stem cell-based therapy because of their beliefs. “I don’t think we’re playing God here. I think what we’re trying to do is understand the capacity of these cells for the greater good, not to manipulate life. That argument has been around for hundreds of years. If that argument had been believed we wouldn’t have penicillin or molecular biology; we wouldn’t have techniques for screening things like breast cancer.
“This science is in its early stages. There are not going to be cures around the corner. It’s going to potentially take quite a long time and a lot of money in a lot of research labs around the world. No one research lab or small group of researchers are going to be able to take it to a clinical product. I would encourage people not to expect results in the short term future but, yes, there is hope that within 10 or 15 years there will be help for people with diseases and injuries.
The case against embryonic stem cell research
Reverend Gordon Moyes AC MLC is an elected member of the New South Wales Legislative Council and part of the Christian Democratic Party. He is also a broadcaster, author, and respected Christian leader.
“I sympathise with the plight of those affected by incurable diseases. As head of Wesley Mission [Sydney] for 27 years, I have been in close contact with many that have experienced extreme hardship because of an illness.
“The question of when life begins is one that has vexed many philosophers for centuries. Can it be said that life commences when a being is physically independent from their mother? Or does life commence when a being has the potential or capacity to live separately from their mother? Does life exist when a being has a tangible and palpable human form? Or does the existence of life depend on the presence of the ability to reason, feel and make decisions? The answer to this age-old question lies at the crux of this debate.
“Every living being, every person, started off as an embryo. Every human embryo, regardless of whether the embryo is formed inside or outside the womb, is a human life. This is a view that is informed by my moral and religious convictions, not only supported by many Christians but also those of a non-Christian faith across the world.
“It is our collective belief that every life, from the very moment of conception, is to be cherished, valued and protected as a human life. This is because every human life from conception carries unique and distinct genetic material, defining that human life as an individual worthy of human rights. Each human life has immutable worth — regardless of race, age, health, birth status or, importantly, perceived value to society. Thus, an embryo should be ascribed the same value as a life that is fully viable and independent from his or her mother.
“If the sanctity of life is tampered with or life is exploited for any reason, in any way and at any stage, our collective level of respect and dignity for life will inevitably diminish. If we cannot together agree on what should be held sacred and valuable when it comes to life, the true essence of what makes us human will come into question. The protection of life at any stage is an irrevocable mandate upon every human being, one that should be considered with utmost seriousness. Without the existence of moral absolutes, the dignity of our humanity is on shaky ground.
“To provide strong, healthy clones for experimentation it is known that many female eggs will be needed. Where does the hunger for discovery stop and the disregard for human life cease? Are there no real limits? Those with the courage and resolve to make a stand for what is sacred — human life — are the only ones that are able to prescribe the real limits.
“If we dare tread on this path, we will be greasing the slippery slope. To disregard life at its inception, the continuum of life at each stage and even at its last, will be in jeopardy of debasement.”
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comment form
