In 2014, Rob Stein of NPR news accompanied an 80 year old woman named Joyce to an eye institute in Los Angeles. Joyce had macular degeneration, a common cause of blindness in the elderly, and volunteered to have human embryonic stem cells put into her damaged retinas. All she wanted was a chance to gain some of her sight and independence back, and be able to actually see her grandchildren grow up. At the very least, she wanted to be a part of research that could help other people in the future. All the while, Joyce wouldn’t reveal her last name due to fear that activists who found embryonic stem cell research as morally wrong would target her.
This leads us into the ethical dilemma of embryonic stem cell research. In the article “Defining a Life: The Ethical Questions of Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” an excellent question is brought up—which is more valuable – the life of a human suffering from a potentially fatal illness or injury, or the life of a human at only one week of development?
Embryonic stem cell research must be continued if there is any hope in eventually being able to cure what doctors have always called incurable. That of course is a very power assertion. Going over the problems that give rise to research and the issues some people have with it, the groups that highlight these issues, and possible solutions, will prove that stem cell research is in fact a necessary part of science.
A problem that humans all around the world have faced for as long as we can remember is disease. Even today, there are still countless diseases, conditions, and disabilities that are labeled incurable. Everything begins with our cells. According to Michael White, “many chronic, incurable diseases are caused by the progressive loss of critical cells that are not re-generated, such as dopamine-secreting neurons in Parkinson's or insulin-producing pancreatic cells in diabetes.” Embryonic stem cells have the capacity to become nearly any cell type in the body, so by transplanting these “replacement cells” into patients, researchers could reverse the disease and save lives, or at least that is the overall goal. However, the use of embryonic stem cells in research is seen as a problem in itself because the removal of stem cells destroys the 5 day old embryo, or blastocyst (the size of the dot over a lowercase "i") in which the cells are located.
A lot of controversy over embryonic stem cell research is caused by pro-life organizations and our government. According to the organization Right to Life of Michigan, embryonic stem cell research sacrifices innocent, vulnerable human lives and is “a utilitarian thinking that is the same kind of rationale used by Nazi scientists.” In 2001, President George W. Bush restricted federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells because it required the destruction of human life, and was quoted by Alice Park, saying he believes “human life to be a sacred gift from our creator.” You can see how that is a little ironic. It wasn’t until 2009 that President Obama lifted the restriction.
In some ways, they're right. Human embryonic stem cells do in fact come from human embryos, but it stops there. These stem cell lines come from day old embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. According to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, people who donate leftover embryos for research go through an extensive consent process to ensure that they fully understand embryonic stem cell research. The embryos that they do donate had either been rejected for implantation and were going to be destroyed, or the couple had decided to stop storing the embryos for future use. Quoting CIRM, “the embryos used to create embryonic stem cell lines were already destined to be destroyed.”
The solution that would end all the controversy would be for researchers to use stem cells acquired from other parts of the body, instead of from embryos. As a matter of fact, that research was being conducted years before the use of embryonic stem cells even began, and like any type of research, it has its advantages and disadvantages. The International Society of Stem Cell Research reports there are two classes of stems cells—pluripotent and multipotent. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can give rise to nearly any cell type in the human body. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are multipotent, meaning they are a more specialized type of cell that will only give rise to cells for the specific tissue or organ in which they are located. Embryonic stem cells are capable of almost unlimited division, and are less likely to have abnormalities with DNA mutations because of how young they are. Adult stem cells are less likely to be rejected by a person’s immune system than embryonic stem cells because they come from the recipients themselves, so they would already be compatible with their bodies. Adult stem cells, however, do not multiply so readily and are more rare in mature tissue, according to the National Institute of Health.
In 2006, Shinya Yamanaka discovered a way to reprogram any mature adult cell into a stem cell that behaves like an embryonic stem cell. They are called induced pluripotent stem cells. As of right now, they are seen as the more ethical version and are thought to be less likely to be rejected by the recipients immune system, but a lot of research still has to be done on them to see how well they actually do stack up against embryonic stem cells.
Illness is a very serious issue that will always be apart of our lives in one way or another. Today, I don't know if Joyce can see. But I do know, according to Rob Stein, that clinical trials have in fact helped other blind people—a legally blind woman in California named Isabella Beukes is now able to see color and even shapes because of stem cells and she found it "amazing to be a part of such groundbreaking research." Embryonic stem cell research may not be the cure-all right now, but it has proven itself a very beneficial part of science, and this is just the beginning. There is still so much more to be learned.
