Stem cells are basically undifferentiated cells. They are the prototype for all of the specialized cell types in the body. Just what processes take place to transform one stem cell into brain tissue and another into a muscle, I have no idea. Clearly, science is slowly unravelling that mystery and finding some explanations.
The issue with research into stem cells is a complex, and ethically subtle one. From what I can tell, surveying 'web lit', the root of the issue is in the harvesting of the raw stem cells to begin with. Those that oppose 'embryonic stem cell research' (stem cell research for the purposes of this discussion) seem to take the position that life starts at conception. Since harvesting stem cells kills the fetus, you are essentially engaging in abortion which they consider immoral. There are some who have made some reasonably intelligible arguments on the subject - that is to say that they aren't just screaming in your face about how "wrong" it is. The whole issue of when and where to harvest stem cells from is much like the abortion discussion itself - the morality of it ultimately boils down to when you believe that life begins. That's a debate that will likely rage for the remainder of humanity's tenure upon this world.
However, I do take issue the following gem in the First Lady's comments:
"I hope that stem cell research will yield cures," the first lady told the Pennsylvania Medical Society. "But I know that embryonic stem cell research is very preliminary right now and the implication that cures for Alzheimer's are around the corner is just not right and it's really not fair to people who are watching a loved one suffer with this disease."Now, here's a piece of vapid logic if I've ever seen one. We're going to shut down a line of research because it isn't guaranteed to solve something. This is like clobbering a new cancer treatment because we don't _know_ that it will cure the disease. It might help the patient, or it might not. Telling the patient that there is a possibility of it working is not providing "false hope". It is called being honest. There are very few things in this world that have guarantees, research has less than most.
I'm not saying that research should run unbridled - as Dr. Mengele demonstrated in Nazi Germany, unwatched research can go horribly wrong. Research often has to tread in areas that were previously considered "forbidden". I would point out that Galileo trod right over the forbidden of his day - primarily by postulating that the Sun, not the Earth was the center point of the Solar System.
The issue is this - we know that stem cells have many significant biomedical applications, but harvesting them turns out to be a rather complex problem. It is the worst kind of blindness that causes government to simply ban a research endeavor because of the complexities of the issues. In all likelihood, there will never be consensus on the subject in the public forum. I think that as long as the processes do not involve coercion of a participant, and do not harm the woman who is acting as donor, the research world has done much to mitigate the problems already.
To blindly equate harvesting stem cells with abortion of a later term fetus is problematic to me. Basically, the argument then boils down to a purely emotional issue, and one that is likely unresolvable. Blind prohibitions merely drive things underground. Abortion in the pre 'Roe-v-Wade' era was very 'under the table', and very dangerous to the woman. Prohibition of Alchohol in the 1920's and 30's gave organized crime a huge source of income to fund other much nastier activities.
Those that oppose embryonic stem cell research need to ask themselves this: The genie's out of the bottle - around the world, there are people doing significant research. Western countries have been able to influence the application of many ethically difficult topics by being participants and leading the way. Can we afford to not be guiding lights in this arena?
No comments:
Post a Comment