| Policy Forum examines the stem cell debate BY MIKE UNGER The debate over stem cell research has become one of the most polarizing and contentious ones in American society. Thursday evening, a distinguished panel of experts from the worlds of politics, science, research, and ethics convened in the Ward Circle Building to examine the issue from a number of different perspectives as part of the second-annual SHAPE: Carmen Group’s Policy Forum. “Embryonic stem cell research offers the possibility of almost unlimited medical breakthroughs,” William LeoGrande, dean of the School of Public Affairs (SPA), said in opening the forum. “But it also presents some of the most anguished ethical questions.” The event was moderated by Judy Bonderman, a professor of justice at the Washington Semester Program. “On one extreme side we have groups opposed to the use of any fertilized egg for science,” she said. “On the other side we have groups who feel it’s the key to curing life-threatening illnesses.” Sharply contrasting opinions were evident throughout the night. AU biology professor Lynne Arneson began the forum by reviewing the science behind stem cell research. “Stem cells are a powerful type of cell that have the ability to continuously divide,” she said. “They can also differentiate into all kinds of cells and tissues. If you give them the proper nutrients these cells can become nerve cells, skin cells, liver cells, or any other type of cells you can think of. They can be used to treat many kinds of human diseases.” Indeed, it is the ability of stem cells to morph into any kind of cell that has medical researchers so excited. Scientists can envision a future when patients suffering from diabetes, Parkinson’s Disease, or a spinal chord injury can receive a transplant of healthy stem cells to replace diseased or damaged ones ravaging their bodies. However, that reality may not be realized for many years or decades. Baldwin Wong, chief of the Science Policy and Planning Branch of the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Deafness and Other Communi-cations Disorders, said that more immediately stem cells could be used to test new drugs or as a means of studying birth defects. “These two areas are probably more promising [in the immediate future] than the use of stem cells for transplantation for repairing damaged organs,” he said. “It’s almost like a jigsaw puzzle. There are many parts that have to fall into place for the science to advance.” One of those is an availability and abundance of stem cell lines for researchers to study. In August 2001, President Bush announced that federal funding would be made available to study stem cell lines already in existence, but that no federal money would go toward lines created thereafter. Tom Dower ’96, legislative director for Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), said many in Congress are hoping to change that. The Senate is working on a bill similar to one that already passed the House that would provide for federal funding for stem cell lines—regardless of when they were created—from embryos made during fertility treatments that would have been discarded anyway. “There is a lot of support in the Senate for stem cell legislation, and there are some very vocal and prominent opponents also,” Dower said. “[Sen. Specter] views stem cell issues, in his words, as ‘a veritable fountain of youth.’” If stem cell research presents such potential to cure some of humanity’s worst afflictions, why is it not moving forward without opposition? Because in order to extract stem cells from embryos, the embryo must be destroyed, which some people consider to be the destruction of human life. “Stem cell research debate is not just a debate about the morality of a specific kind of research,” said Josephine Johnston, associate for ethics, law, and society at the Hastings Center. “Whether it is ethical to destroy early embryos for the sake of research depends on how you weigh the value of embryonic life on one hand and the value of research on the other. That starts to mirror the ongoing debate in the country on abortion.” Johnston discussed many other moral and ethical questions surrounding the issue, including cloning, paying egg donors, and whether researchers should be obligated to share their work. By the end of the night, much to the benefit of everyone in attendance just as many questions had been raised as were answered. |
