Sonia LeeMath 89s GTDFirst Term PaperStem Cell Research10/4/2012

The stem cell research debate has been fiercely raging since the first human

embryonic stem cells were isolated in late 1998. Even with the potential ability to

isolate and develop embryonic stem cells without harming an actual embryo, many

people still believe it is not acceptable by either moral or religious standards. Now

new advancements in biomedical tissue engineering, such as muscle and organ

replacement, bring up new issues on top of the old embryo-centered debates. With

the potential to renew the crippled, make new organs, and cure numerous diseases,

is mankind overstepping its boundaries? What about issues of overpopulation by

solving everyone’s medical issues? Essentially, where is the line between science’s

duty and religious beliefs?

Stem cells are cells found in most multi-cellular organisms that are

specifically characterized by the ability to split into many different types of cells.

Research has been done since the 1960s (1) to find ways to culture and implement

the use of stem cells in human bodies in order to regenerate parts of the body that

were once thought permanently dead after damage by force, defects, or disease.

Embryonic stem cells were first separated in 1998 and adult stem cells were first

isolated in 2007 (2). Although the debate over embryonic stem cell research has

died down since its first isolation because of the introduction of the adult stem cell,

embryonic stem cell research is still being funded. The reason for this is adult stem

cells have limitations on what kind of cell they differentiate into, while embryonic

stem cells can become any of the 200 or more types of human cells.

However, adult stem cell research has found iPS (induced pluripotent stem)

cells, which are derived from an adult body, but are very similar to embryonic stem

cells in many aspects, especially in terms of differentiability (3). These iPS cells

have not been fully researched of their capabilities and limitations yet. Therefore,

embryonic stem cell funding will not be stopped until iPC cells are proven to be

sufficient replacements of embryonic stem cells. This is why, even though the

contest over embryonic stem cell research is not as intense as before, it still exists in

the scientific community and the world.

The debate manifested itself in the flip-flopping of the past three U.S.

Presidents’ stances on federally funded stem cell research. President Bill Clinton

supported the National Institutes of Health’s guidelines for federal funding of

embryonic stem cell research. Then President George W. Bush limited all federal

funding during his two terms; he also vetoed two bills that would have eased

restrictions on funding. And most recently in 2011, President Barack Obama

“signed an executive order removing restrictions on funding for research using

embryonic stem cells put in place in 2001 by the Bush administration.” (4)

The problem is, the contest over research is not about to die down any time

soon. As a matter of fact, the debate is on its way to becoming significantly more

complicated than it already is. Recently, more and more medical milestones have

been achieved. Sgt. Ron Strang “wondered if he would ever be able to walk normally

again…after a roadside bomb in Afghanistan blew off part of his left thigh (5).”

However after scientists removed the living cells from a sheet of tissue of a pig’s

bladder, the remaining extracellular matrix of collagen and protein was stitched into

Sgt. Strang’s healthy thigh tissue. The result was that he could walk normally again

with a barely noticeable limp. Stem cells in Sgt. Strang’s body were attracted to the

site of a fresh template and then were able to divide and differentiate into new

muscle cells, basically integrating the ECM sheet as part of his own body (6).

Even more complicated than muscle replacement, a trachea replacement was

done in 2011 on Andemariam Beyene’s throat tumor that threatened his life just

two years ago (7). The process is shown below, but essentially an organ made with

the man’s own cells helped Beyene survive a fatal condition (8). Most recently, an

article was put out in the New York Times that highlighted the struggles of one-year

old Mark Barfknecht, who is suffering from an early condition called “necrotizing

enterocolitis.” Most of Mark’s small intestines already failed him and had to be cut

out, but he was lucky in that less than 75% of his intestines had to be taken out. It is

the unlucky ones who suffer long term from this infantile condition - one that

doctors are scrambling to find a solution to through stem cell scaffolding (9).

As impressive and inspiring these innovations have been, they only

complicate the issue of stem cell research. As seen, it will not be much longer until

complex organs are figured out by using scaffolding and stem cells. This means that

cancers could be cured from relatively easy and readily available, reliable organ

transplants. More wounded soldiers like Sgt. Strang would be able to lead normal

lives, more babies like Mark could live without liver complications, and more

innocent peoples’ lives saved. But the question is: would it be science’s duty to heal

as many people as possible? And if it was, would everyone get access to this heal-

all? Then wouldn’t overpopulation exponentially increase? The Earth is already

getting too crowded – imagine what would happen if the ill in even just America got

access to unlimited stem cell cures? However, isn’t it unethical or even just plain

mean to keep this panacea for solely research purposes? And even more so for

those who can afford it?

Then there would be further arguments in the religious world. Having the

ability to cure all these diseases and simply recreate human life is “playing God” to

some. Humans would be taking over the role of God, as Christianity defines him.

But another aspect of this dispute is whether compassion and healing the sick takes

precedence over regard for a higher order. Some religious people would argue that

God (or any higher power) gave us this knowledge in order to heal people, or he/it

would have stopped us already. Many religious questions come into play and

complicate an already intricate web of debates in the scientific ethical world.

From the survey I conducted, it seems as if it is very partisan towards pro

stem cell research. More surprisingly, many students seemed to be in favor of stem

cell research with no limitations on availability if it became viable to produce organs

and cure diseases. Considering all of the opposing arguments for and against in the

debate, this heavy bias could be in part because of a few reasons. This election was

not private (people could talk to each other while taking it), age is definitely a factor

for supporting liberal views, and our age could have also led us to not fully consider

every implication of stem cell research. Also, people may have felt pressure to

answer quickly, and therefore not give the survey much thought. Or just in general,

people may not have been educated enough on the topic to decide what they

actually would think had they been more informed. But this does not mean that the

survey results would have been significantly different – they could have been

exactly the same, who knows?

Ultimately, improvements in the medical bioengineering field are

theoretically great, but raise new questions that scientists, doctors, and regular

people (such as Duke students) must ask themselves with care. And consequently,

we all need to be ready to answer them and we should know what to do with our

newfound power, if complex organs can be successfully made and now-fatal

diseases cured. As the old saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility;

this is possibly the greatest one we will have to handle in our lifetime should

research advance at the same pace it has been for the past two decades.

Works Cited

Badylak, Stephen, and Randal McKenzie. "Remodeling Muscle." The New York Times.

The New York Times, 16 Sept. 2012. Web. 01 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/17/health/research/remodeling-

muscle.html?ref=research>. (6)

Fountain, Henry. "A First: Organs Tailor-Made With Body’s Own Cells." The New York

Times. The New York Times, 15 Sept. 2012. Web. 01 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/health/research/scientists-make-progress-

in-tailor-made-organs.html?pagewanted=1>. (7)

Fountain, Henry. "Human Muscle, Regrown on Animal Scaffolding." The New York

Times. New York Times, 16 Sept. 2012. Web. 01 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/health/research/human-muscle-

regenerated-with-animal-help.html>. (5)

Fountain, Henry. "One Day, Growing Spare Parts Inside the Body." The New York Times.

The New York Times, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 01 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/health/research/using-the-body-to-

incubate-replacement-organs.html?pagewanted=1&ref=health>. (9)

Godoy, Maria, Joe Palca, and Beth Novey. "Key Moments in the Stem-Cell Debate."

NPR, 20 Nov. 2007. Web. 01 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5252449>. (2)

Ritter, Amy. "Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research Gets Green Light."

PharmTech Talk. Pharmaceutical Technology, 05 Sept. 2007. Web. 01 Oct. 2012.

<http://blog.pharmtech.com/2012/09/05/funding-for-embryonic-stem-cell-

research-gets-green-light/>. (4)

"A Synthetic Windpipe." New York Times. New York Times Company, 15 Sept. 2012.

Web. 01 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/15/health/research/a-synthetic-

windpipe.html?ref=research>. (8)

Wikipedia Contributors. "Induced pluripotent stem cell." Wikipedia, The Free

Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 10 Sep. 2012. Web. 1 Oct.

2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPS_cells>. (3)

Wikipedia Contributors. "Stem Cell." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 30 Sept. 2012.

Web. 01 Oct. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell>. (1)