Drawing the Line on Stem Cell Research

By Broadside Opinion Columnist Michael Gryboski

In recent news, a team of Japanese researchers were able to create stem cells from discarded wisdom teeth. A year earlier, a joint American and Japanese team successfully created stem cells from skin. The cells created were “pluripotent”, which means that they can become any specialized cell in the human body. None of these findings, let alone others by teams using objective means, have stopped various embryonic stem cell research proponents from painting their adversaries as anti-science religious fanatics. Rather than engage in a proper debate, far too many embryonic stem cell research proponents have decided to resort to name-calling, most likely as a means to conceal their own shortcomings.
Stems cells are the master cells of the body, being able to not only produce copies of themselves but other cell types as well. Being found throughout a human body, stem cells are useful because they have the potentiality to replace damaged cells. There are two classifications for stem cells, embryonic and adult. The former comes from human embryos, the latter from other parts of the human body. For some years there has been a strong political push to federally fund embryonic stem cell research, because so many see it as the beginning of a fantastic future hindered by religious dogmatists.
The Center For Inquiry, a secular humanist organization, supports embryonic stem cell research. Regarding those who oppose it in the United States they said, “We cannot hope to convince those in other countries of the dangers of religious fundamentalism when religious fundamentalists influence our policies at home; we cannot hope to convince others that it is wrong to compel women to veil themselves when we deliberately draw a veil over scientific knowledge.”
So in other words to oppose embryonic stem cell research is to be a religious fundamentalist. This would be a surprise to nations like France, Canada, Norway, and the Netherlands, politically progressive countries who nevertheless place various restrictions on research. It would also be a surprise to Iran, a nation whose government is deemed fundamentalist, for they allow limited research on stem cells. But let’s not be too hasty for the CFI appears to be somewhat correct when it comes to secular government being in favor of stem cell research: Communist China fully supports stem cell research in their country. (I guess that takes care of any ethics concerns people may have.)
However the CFI is not alone in its view of the supremacy of embryonic stem cell research. Many politicians have voiced similar statements viewing opponents to the research as being somehow intellectually inferior. Former presidential hopeful Senator John Kerry stated in his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention “I fight to restore a government that believes again in science…I [will] work to end the ban on funding for stem cell research that can unlock the cures of the future.”
The assumption is that embryonic stem cell research is the one true science and opposition to it is anti-science. This claim becomes a little less tenable when one looks into the actual research done on embryos, which is laden with shortcomings and fraud. Though seldom reported, embryonic stem cells used for research often form tumors, which would not exactly benefit anyone using them for therapy. As executive director for the Center for Genetics and Society Richard Hayes once wrote on the progressive website tompaine.com, “Fundamental questions need to be answered before the therapeutic potential of stem cells can honestly be assessed. Can the tendency of embryonic stem cells to create tumors be eliminated? If not, it’s difficult to see how they will be able to serve as a source of replacement tissues.” Then there are hoaxes, like the one perpetrated by Korean stem cell researcher Hwang Woo Suk. In 2004 Suk claimed to have cloned stem cells from embryos, making his work a monumental advance in the field. However two years later an academic panel organized by Seoul National University found that his findings were fabricated.
There are alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cells are a noteworthy example. In addition to being more plentiful than embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells remove the ethics issue commonly found with embryonic destruction. Although initially adult stem cells were found to be hard to change into other cell types, new research including that which was mentioned above show that these barriers are being successfully overcome. Now that is research we should invest in and leave the religion-bashers, the hoaxers, and those who have mere hopes for unfounded progress behind.