Tuesday, August 24, 2010

A Victory for Life and Science

I never cared much for doing science fairs when I was a child.  To be honest, I just wasn't that creative and didn't have ideas that I could realistically test that hadn't been done by others.  What's the point in doing a volcano for the hundredth time, talking about the chemical reaction of whatever two components you chose to make it explode?  But, I did like to play with shiny things and I would come up with all kinds of ideas that would allow me to see what burned what color or what worked as a better magnet, etc.  A lot of what I did when I was young wasn't science, but that didn't stop me from submitting those ideas as science fair projects, just because I had to do something.

I wonder sometimes if that same idea is what is behind much science today.  How much do researchers attempt to get the government, or private companies, to finance ideas that they know are not effective, but they have wed themselves to ideologically or economically?  I have a feeling that the answer might be more than many of us realize.  That isn't to fault researchers, it isn't to say that they don't believe that somehow, someday, they might be able to do some good with their ideas, but they realize that any such good is really a long, long way off.  Likewise, even if they are blinded by their own commitments, that only demonstrates that they are human, because all of us have our ideological blind spots, usually areas that we will passionately defend, even if someone points out that our positions don't make much sense.

I wonder if that is why some scientists continue to insist on the potential of embryonic stem cells.  The fact is that there is not much promise in embryonic stem cells.  The very few successful uses of embryonic stem cells have been limited to animal models, and even then there have been increased cysts and tumors.  Yes, the discovery of these types of stem cells only dates back 12 years, but the fact is that there hasn't been a successful treatment on humans yet.  In the only current FDA permitted trial in the United States they are working with cells that are derived from embryonic stem cells, despite the fact that cysts were more prevalent on the spines of the mice that received the treatment.  (The FDA did not comment on why they removed the hold they had placed on the research, however the company doing the research claimed that the cysts had no adverse reactions, and that they changed their treatment to result in fewer cysts.)

Don't misunderstand me, I'm really big on the idea of stem cell research.  I mean I think that the possibility that we could use naturally occurring cells in the human body to cure major diseases which we have no effective means of currently treating is absolutely wonderful.  Adult stem cells have shown promise in this area.  Because adult stem cells are able to be developed from a person's own body they generally do not suffer from the issue of rejection like embryonic stem cells.  Adult stem cells have also been used successfully in human trials.  (Each of the words in the previous sentence links to a different site discussing the success of adult stem cells.  I chose the sites I did based on the fact that each of them contains at least one different story, so that while there may be overlapping examples the sites also each contain unique examples, or if two sites had two of the same stories, they are thus represented properly as two different situations.  The whole points being that you could spend all day finding new examples of the success of adult stem cells.  Some of the stories mentioned above include recovery from decades of blindness, walking after nearly two decades of paralysis, and many other amazing events of that nature, all due to adult stem cell research.)

It is because I am a big supporter of adult stem cells that I am excited that a court has halted a recent decision from the Obama administration to allow for additional federal funding on embryonic stem cells (pending the results of a lawsuit).  Please, let me be clear: I am not against stem cell research, I am against the murder of babies, (primarily) and the waste of limited resources in less efficient areas of research when there are already existing promising opportunities presenting real cures for existing diseases.  Yes, I intended to say "murder of babies" above.  Embryonic stem cells are generally obtained from destroying a fetus, thus terminating a life that has already begun.  You can argue that this is not killing a person if you want (I find that argument logically tortuous and laughable, but that's up to you) but you cannot say that you are not killing an actual human being as an embryo is a living independent organism, with human DNA.  (Again, I know there are methods of getting embryonic stem cells that do not involve the destruction of embryos, but lets be honest, the reality is that most lines of embryonic stem cells are developed from killing an embryo.)

This really is a victory both for science and for life.  Scientifically speaking there is less value in embryonic stem cell research than there is adult stem cell research, even if based on nothing but potential for results.  From the perspective of a culture of life, this is a great victory because there will be no federal funding of the murder of the innocent.  The federal judge did not rule that embryos are humans and should, therefore, have the full protection of the authorities against being wrongfully murdered.  The judgment does not at all address the reality that we are killing our children for the vain hope that we might derive some form of medical benefit in the long term.  But, I'll take what victories we can get, even if they do not address the root problems that we are facing.

If you think my language is brash in arguing against embryonic stem cell research, then I beg you to reconsider.  I have already laid out my position: a baby is a baby from the time of conception to the time of birth.  While many things may happen to naturally terminate a pregnancy before the birth of a child, that does not make it less a murder when we do so intentionally.  That is why I take this so seriously.  God is the giver of life, for us to arbitrarily take the life of another human being is a horrible thing.

1 comment:

  1. I just thought I would respond really quickly to your post:

    In regards to your comments pertaining to embryonic research being tantamount to murder, I think you are a little confused. As per the National Institute of Health’s stem cell research information page:

    “Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body.”

    These eggs are therefore not capable of surviving on their own and, because eggs are inseminated at a ratio of 75,000 to 1, only a small number are ever actually used during the child bearing process; meaning that if it were not for something like stem cell research that these samples would simply be destroyed anyways. (I fail to see how getting potentially lifesaving research from something that would otherwise just be thrown away can be seen as anything other than a positive.)

    So bearing that in mind, perhaps your real issue then is with in vitro fertilization itself. I personally find that to be a somewhat difficult argument to make given that using natural birthing procedures a similar process occurs (by which a woman produces and disposes of large quantities of eggs at regular intervals throughout the year; of which only a small portion are ever used even if conception actually takes place.) This particular stance is made only more tenuous when you look at the numerous couples around the world that have issues conceiving using natural child bearing processes and that find themselves in situations where they end up depending on various science based aids, like in vitro fertilization, in their attempts to realize the dream of parenthood.

    I also want to point out that there are
    differences between adult and embryonic stem cells ; a subject that I will not delve into, but you can read more on here:

    http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

    Finally, I would like to mention that it often takes a long time for scientific research to fully develop; especially in the medical field where years of extensive trial testing are required for particular procedure or treatment to receive FDA approval and general medical acceptance. (A process is only further complicated when questions of morality and a high degree of public ignorance come into play.) As someone who has written grant proposals and who understands how difficult and time consuming that process can be, I can fully understand how something as complicated as stem cell research could take two or three decades to reach its full potential. Electric vehicle research for example has been going on for over a century and billions of dollars of public and private dollars have been spent on that area of research alone, and yet it is just now that they are starting to see the return on that investment.

    I would also remind you that although stem cells have been used in research for 12 years, due to the various research regulations enacted during President Bush’s tenure, public funding for that research has been off limits for the majority of that time period; so it is not really fair to judge the potential usefulness of stem cells based on that timeline alone.

    Regardless, your post was an interesting read, and I look forward to checking out your blog again in the future. (Just double check your facts a bit more next time or I will have to come back and straighten you out again ;).)

    ReplyDelete