A few short years ago it was rare to meet someone who knew what it meant when I said that I was a stem cell biologist. Now virtually everyone seems to have heard of stem cells–and has an opinion about them.
It would be encouraging if these opinions were based on a substantial increase in public awareness of the biology of stem cells. Instead I find a political battlefield in which the biology seems almost irrelevant. This would not really matter if the rhetoric were not so hot or if the stakes were not so high.
Stem cell biology will revolutionize the practice of medicine. Illnesses such as heart attacks, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, spinal-cord injury, and many others will be treatable. The issue is simply too important to leave to the mercy of uninformed politicians being swayed by a small but vocal group of people with their own agendas. When I was a medical student, I was dismayed to discover how little could be done for patients whose brains or spinal cords were injured by trauma or disease. I resolved to devote my career as a neurologist to trying to devise techniques for repairing the damaged nervous system.
This was an almost quixotic quest since at that time there were not yet any practical concepts about how this could be done. However, the extraordinary progress in the field of stem cell biology now makes this a realistic goal. It is truly a joy to think that a lifelong dream of helping neurologically crippled patients may actually come true.
You might suppose that what upsets me the most about the stem cell controversy is that political obstructions potentially threaten this lifelong quest.
You would be wrong.
A little more than three years ago my daughter suffered a spinal-cord injury in a skiing accident. Although she is now confined to a wheelchair, she is a remarkable young woman who has just finished her freshman year at Harvard University.
She has accepted what happened to her and is determined to live to the fullest. She also has faith that medical progress will one day enable her to walk again. It is my job to help make that happen.
I am far more outraged as a father than as a stem-cell biologist at the people who would try to prevent this from happening. I share this outrage with everyone who has a loved one with an incurable malady that might one day be treatable with stem-cell therapies.
It is no secret why the field of stem-cell biology found itself with allies such as Nancy Reagan, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and many others across the political and religious spectrum. Their loved ones have similarly been touched by human disease.
The large majority of Americans are in favor of broad government support for stem-cell research. Why are some people crusading against this? In this crusade, as in others, there is a mixture of intolerance of new thoughts, unfounded moral certainty and perhaps religious fervor, combined with a willingness to impose personal beliefs on the rest of the world.
Resistance is the norm
Historically, resistance to new thoughts and scientific change has been the norm. Undoubtedly, many vocal opponents of stem-cell research would scoff at suggestions that the Earth is the center of the universe, that the world is flat, that humans can never fly. However, the cup of hemlock that they would like to brew for stem cell researchers differs little from the approaches taken by their historical brethren who knew, with certainty, that we live on a flat world at the center of the universe.
A bill was actually introduced in Congress that would make it a felony punishable by a minimum of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine to perform some types of stem-cell research. We must be vigilant and guard against irrational resistance to change.
Others oppose stem-cell research because they fear that the technology might be abused for the reproductive cloning of human beings. No responsible stem-cell biologist has any interest in cloning humans, and there is virtually unanimous support for a ban on reproductive cloning. Trying to obstruct scientific progress because of fears of abuse of technology is not a rational approach.
On Sept. 11, 2001, we learned that airplanes can be used to destroy buildings. The response is not to outlaw airplanes but rather to outlaw their inappropriate use. The same is true of stem-cell research.
Some of the more ardent anti-stem-cell crusaders say that they act because of moral and ethical imperatives. It does not seem to matter to them that other thoughtful, compassionate human beings do not share their beliefs.
There is also rarely any discussion of biology or any scientific rationale for their moral judgments. Their opposition to stem cell research focuses primarily on two issues: the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer (therapeutic cloning) and the use by researchers of frozen embryos that are otherwise slated to be destroyed.
Unfertilized egg cell used
The process of somatic cell nuclear transfer uses an unfertilized egg cell, an oocyte, from a woman and a donor cell (for example a skin cell) from a patient. The nucleus, the part of the cell that contains DNA, is removed from the oocyte, and the nucleus from the donor cell is transferred into it. The process is technically complicated but very straightforward in concept.
Some critics maintain that this process creates life and that human life should not be created for medical or scientific purposes.
However, any scientist would tell you that no human being has the power or knowledge to create life. The process of somatic cell nuclear transfer starts with a living cell and ends with a living cell, so it is not life that is being created. Has this process created an individual human person or a potential human person?
There is absolutely no potential for this cell to become a human being.
Similar issues pertain to the use by researchers of frozen embryos that are slated to be destroyed. I find it impossible to believe that it is morally or ethically superior to discard such embryos rather than to use them for research devoted to curing human diseases.
Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that we are discussing a microscopic cluster of no more than 200 cells that has absolutely no potential to develop into a human being unless it is implanted in a uterus. The profound difference between fertilization and conception is frequently forgotten. Fertilization can happen in a laboratory, but the conception of a human individual can only happen after the fertilized oocyte is implanted in the uterus.
That is why we correctly speak of in-vitro fertilization rather than in-vitro conception. It is ironic that opponents of stem-cell research profess to be following moral, ethical and religious guidelines about the sanctity of human life.
The moral obligation to help other human beings is a concept universal to virtually all religions, and the entire focus of stem-cell biology is on alleviating human suffering and disease. Anti-stem-cell crusaders seem to place more importance on a cluster of cells that has no possibility of becoming a human than on the suffering and needs of real human beings.
Embedded in the opposition to stem-cell research is a fundamental attitude of suspicion and fear regarding the application of human reason and research to the area of human reproduction. However, regardless of one’s religious beliefs, it is an undeniable fact that reproductive biology is exactly what the words imply, namely a part of biology.
Many can have children
Advances in reproductive medicine have enabled many infertile couples to overcome myriad problems and to have children. As a physician and a scientist, I can see no reason to question the morality of helping human beings in this way.
Like all crusaders, the vocal minority against stem-cell research seeks to impose its beliefs on everyone and to impede (and even imprison) stem-cell researchers. Ironically, in my heart I believe that when stem-cell therapies become a reality, many of the opponents of stem-cell research would eagerly seek any such therapies that could help a beloved family member or friend who was touched by disease.
By allowing and supporting stem-cell research in the United States, we will facilitate its progress, keep our researchers within the country and bring stem-cell therapies closer to reality.
I want to be able to help my patients overcome diseases that have devastated their brains and spinal cords.
I want my daughter to walk again.
