Sex, Science, and Stem Cells, Research Paper Example

For the millions of people worldwide who suffer from chronic, debilitating and often fatal diseases, the study of stem cells and their potential for treating and possibly curing diseases has provided hope and motivation to continue struggling with the possibility of an end to the agony in sight.  Globally, stem cell research has been an exciting area of scientific advancement with the goal of improving the future of mankind.  In the United States, however, where one would normally assume that a world leader would be at the forefront of such life-altering progress, instead, there have been several obstacles that have stood in the way of this research, causing the United States to lag behind much of the rest of the world in medical treatments that utilize stem cells.  In fact, since 2003, the International Stem-Cell Forum , comprised of 14 leading funders of stem cell research from all over the world, is dedicated to “the encouragement of  international collaboration and funding support with the overall goal of promoting global good practice and accelerating progress in this vitally important area of biomedical science “ (Stem cell information). This paper will examine the legislative issues that have prevented our country from moving forward on such important work, as compared with other nations’ commitment to the research, even those countries with considerably fewer resources than the United States.

What makes human embryonic stem cells so valuable?  To begin with, they are undifferentiated at that point and so are able to grow into nearly any other type of cell in the human body.  In 1998, researchers at the University of Wisconsin, utilizing earlier stem cell research, set aside cells from the inner cell mass of the early human embryo called the blastocyst, and created the first human embryonic stem cell lines. (Duffy 2002.) The research  has centered on the possibility that these cells can be used to treat and possibly eliminate diseases, and in addition, may have the potential to replace dysfunctional tissue or diseased organs.  Study efforts have centered on treating illnesses as devastating as Parkinson’s Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, spinal cord injury, cancer, diabetes and many other conditions.  The goal is to utilize these cells to replace diseased cells in the brain, pancreas, spinal cord and other parts of the body.

Embryonic stem cells are superior to adult stem cells because they are able to grow into virtually any organ part, rather than only the organ from which they are removed. (Duffy 2002.)

The ambivalence about funding stem cell research in the United States dates back to 1974, when Congress banned the use of federal funds for nearly all fetal tissue study until ethical guidelines could be established.  The following year, Congress established an Ethics Advisory Board  in order to establish standards for the use of fetal tissue from abortions. (Stem cell research timeline, 2009).) However, five years later, President Ronald Reagan decided not to renew the Board’s charter which caused a halt to federal funding of embryonic research.

In 1988, The Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel revisited the issue of fetal tissue research and voted overwhelmingly to approve embryonic research.  However, when three conservatives expressed their fear that embryonic research would result in a greater number of abortions, the moratorium on embryonic tissue research was extended. (Stem cell research timeline, 2009)  ) Stem cell research decisions have swung back and forth like a ping-pong ball between Congress and whichever president is an office over the last three decades.  In 1990, Congress tried to override the moratorium on embryonic stem cell legislation, but President George H.W. Bush vetoed that effort.  President Clinton’s Secretary of HHS, Donna Shalala, lifted the moratorium on the federal funding, following the wishes of President Clinton.  However, under mounting pressure of the religious right contingency, President Clinton reinstated the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.  In addition, the following year, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment enacted by Congress followed through by banning any federal funding for the creation of embryos for stem cell research purposes, as well as for the destruction of embryos for research.

In August, 2001, President George W. Bush prevented federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research that used stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001, although his policy did not affect the research and the private sector or research that was conducted using state funding.( (Stem cell research timeline, 2009).)

On June 20, 2007, President Bush issued Executive Order 13435, requiring that the Secretary Of Health And Human Services encourage the exploration of other sources of stem cells aside from embryos.  Indeed, this was only one example of the Bush administration’s hostility to science in favor of faith-based ideology.  When it came to global climate change, other environmental issues, evolution and other important scientific issues, the administration invariably gave in to its perceived base, the religious right (Duncan, 2008.) In addition, in her well researched book, Sex, Science, And Stem Cells: Inside The Right Wing Assault On Reason, Congresswoman Diana DeGette describes with stinging prose the Republican right wing’s positions on sex education, birth control, abortion and embryonic stem cell research  (Degette 2008.) She describes how the right wing is sabotaging scientific progress under the guise of following God’s law.  Her belief is that conservatives have taken over the agenda concerning women’s issues.  Motivated by her daughter’s diabetes, the stem cell research has been a personal and cultural cause for her.  She was the author of legislation to facilitate embryonic stem cell research which was, predictably but very unfortunately stopped by a veto by President George W. Bush.

In the United States , over the last decade, the supposed wall between church and state that is supposed to exist appears to have been diminished or actually eliminated when it comes to science.  From the outset, there has been much opposition to the use of human embryonic research.  Most of the objections come from the religious right, who argue that the cells represent a human life, and they should not be destroyed for the purposes of science, even if it saves lives.  In some ways, the argument is curious because the fact is that for years, embryos have been simply discarded infertility clinics by the tens of thousands with little or no objection from the same people who are opposed to using the embryos for scientific research.

Because some of the embryos that are created during the in vitro fertilization process are labeled “clinically useless” because they are not perfect, they are simply discarded.  However, a scientist published a paper indicating that those embryos could be a reliable source for embryonic stem cell research and purposes (Andrews 2008.) According to the authors of that study, approximately half of the embryos created in clinics are discarded, providing potentially hundreds of thousands of embryos every year that could be used for research.

The Bush administration was characterized by an emphasis on ruling by religious ideology at the expense of scientific advancement.  When he took office in 2001, President Bush ordered the Department Of Health And Human Services to perform a review of the issue of stem cell research, including the former administration’s guidelines pertaining to such research.  In August, 2001, the president determined that federal funds would be made available to support a limited supply of human embryonic stem cell research, namely, research that applied only to 64 existing stem cell lines.  President Bush, as well as those who oppose embryonic stem cell research, argued that each stem cell represents a human life, and that removing cells from the embryo involves destroying that life and is akin to murder.  The factor that religion played in that decision is that it is based on the belief that life begins at conception, and that is not necessarily a belief held by people of other religions or who are not religious at all.  The debate that has ensued involves whether a clump of cells that is in embryo should have more rights to exist and to have a quality of life than those who are already formed, born people.  President Bush issued Executive Order 134 35, which allowed the 67 existing lines to be studied but banned any further use of new stem cell lines to be used in research as well as banning the use of any federal funding for such research.  This greatly slowed down or eliminate d the motivation for skilled,  renowned scientists to invest their efforts in studying embryonic stem cell use in the United States, causing many to leave the country to seek positions in other areas where such research was not only supported financially but was considered to be a priority for the health of its citizens.

An interesting contradiction that has occurred regarding the issue of stem cell research is the fact that thousands and thousands of embryos from fertility clinics are simply discarded each year, yet the opposition to stem cell research has said little to nothing about those facts.  It is difficult to understand why people would prefer that embryos which are frozen and will ultimately be simply thrown out in the garbage, would not be utilized in order to save people’s lives.

Happily, within two months of the inauguration of President Obama, Executive Order 13505 was issued, which was designed to “remove barriers to responsible scientific research involving human stem cells”.  This has caused much hope and optimism that perhaps the United States would at last be able to catch up with other countries around the world that have been heavily involved in scientific research using stem cell lines.  Undoubtedly, our country has lost some of its best scientists because they were unable to conduct the research that they needed to do, because of lack of funding, utilizing embryonic stem cells.  Despite the back and forth by politicians over the last decades, the public has largely been supportive of embryonic stem cell research.  Perhaps if more politicians had family members or were themselves directly affected by serious and intolerable illnesses, their attitudes about embryonic stem cell research would change.

In my opinion, the fact that our laws regarding the ability to conduct stem cell research keep changing depending on who is in office is a national disgrace.  I do recall that years ago, when the abortion pill RU-486 was developed and became available on the market, there was a large outcry in France by right- to- lifers who were absolutely opposed to the pill being available to French women, and to young women in particular without their parents’ consent.  The government ultimately ruled that the pill had to become available to the public since “science belongs to the public,” and cannot be censored by any interest groups or political factions.  I felt envious that this is a country that refused to be swayed by extremists who were determined to infringe on the civil rights of ordinary citizens based on their own religious beliefs.

Because I have a personal investment in this issue—and who among us is not close to or them- self suffers from a debilitating illness?—I have followed it closely and find it an extremely positive development than our current president has taken a clear and strong stand on behalf of science.  On the other hand, because there are elections in a few weeks which may change the composition of Congress, there is always the possibility that once again, scientists’ ability to engage in research that has the potential to significantly improve the lives of so many will be taken away. Political grandstanding and worries about being voted out of office because of taking a stand that runs counter to the religious right is already occurring.  In addition, I keep returning to the same question that never seems to be answered by those who oppose embryonic stem cell research: if there’s so much concern about the destruction of the embryos, why is there no similar concern about the fact that so many of them are simply thrown in the garbage at fertility clinics?

References

Andrews, B. (2008, January 30). Stem cell lines created from discarded IVF embryos. Retrieved September 23, 2010, from Harvard science: .http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/foundations/articles/stem-cell-lines-created-discarded-ivf-embryos

DeGette, D. (2008). Sex, science, and stem cells: inside the right wing assaults on reason. Guilford: Lyons Press.

Duffy, D. T. (2002, June 12). Congressional research service. Retrieved September 23, 2010, from Almanac of policy issues: http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/archive/crs_stem_cell.shtml

Duncan, D. E. (2008, January 9). Last days of the anti-science president. Retrieved September 23, 2010, from Portfolio.com: http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/natural-selection/2008/01/09/The-Anti-Science-President

Stem cell information. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23, 2010, from International stem cell research: . http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/intlresearch.asp

Stem cell research timeline. (2009, February 20). Retrieved September 23, 2010, from Stem cell tracker: http://www.stemcelltracker.com/2009/02/stem-cell-research-timeline.html

T.Hall, C. (2001, August 20). The forgotten embryo/fertility clinics must store or destroyed the surplus that is part of a process. Retrieved September 23, 2010, from SFgate.com.: http://articles.sfgate.com/2001-08-20/news/17614928_1_human-embryos-cell-controversy-cell-research

White, D. (n.d.). Pros and cons of embryonic stem cell research. Retrieved September 23, 2010, from About.com: http://usliberals.about.com/od/stemcellresearch/i/StemCell1.htm