Adult and Umbilical Cord Stem Cells vs. Embryonic Stem Cells
John Konop asks in an earlier post today (“Scientists aim to cure blindness with stem cells”) if some pending experimentation by British researchers into the feasibility of using embryonic stem cells should alter the debate. My answer is that I certainly hope not.
Ethically and morally, the killing of the unborn for any reason is repulsive. Creating monsters for cloning or to manufacture spare body parts as a “cure” for others does not lesson the repulsive nature of the practice, it aggravates it. To the retort that these embryos are not viable, the off chance that some “benefit” may someday be discovered using embryonic stem cells will certainly increase their demand, leading to the creation of even more “unviable” embryos. That some victims of organ snatching in China may be “dying anyway” does not make that burgeoning industry benign, no matter who many people in need of functioning kidneys benefit from the practice. The same logic applies here.
But beyond the moral and ethical considerations, the harvesting of embryonic stem cells for research and medical application is simply unnecessary given the promise and proven value of using adult and umbilical cord stem cells.
A good practice in evaluating most any issue is to follow the money. The reason there is such a push for government (read: “coerced taxpayer”) funding of embryonic stem cell research is because private donors have seen little value in investing in this area. Indeed, even though embryonic stem cell research is legal in several states and nations, embryonic stem cells have not cured or successfully treated a single patient.
But the private funds are flowing to adult and umbilical cord stem cell research. Why? Because, according to the National Marrow Donor Program, more than 70 conditions are already treatable using non-embryonic stem cell therapies – and much more promise remains. These treatable conditions including breast cancer, leukemia, sickle cell anemia, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, heart damage and spinal cord injuries.
For those interested, here is a much expanded, detailed and heavily footnoted list of the successes and promise seen in using non-embryonic stem cell treatments.
*****
(Eric Langborgh is the director of development for the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU). His views and comments expressed at the Control Congress blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent those of the ACRU, unless so specified. His writings can also be found at the Borg Blog)
“Ethically and morally, the killing of the unborn for any reason is repulsive”
Then, I guess we better get to work on all those embryos fertility clinics dump in the garbage.
Where does the queue start for mandatory implantation?
Eric – To hear a political operative pretend to be a scientist is always refreshing. To hear a ‘conservative’ political operative providing instruction on what is or is not ethical, well that’s even better.
The people of Washington DC felt that by banning gun sales within the city, that violent crime would drop. It did, but your organization stood up for rights, argued that the importance of rights trumped the community’s desire for safety. In this instance, ACRU insists that it knows what is best for DC, and is more of an authority on the subject than the district’s police and elected leaders.
Here ACRU is insisting to know what is best for everyone in America…changing out of the sociologist-wear and into a lab coat. Your organization’s expertise in this scientific matter centers around ‘what is ethical?’ and ‘who needs embryonic stem cell therapies anyhow?’
The first (what is ethical?), to me seems dead on arrival, as for your organization to be serious about the destruction of an embryo, then why aren’t you petitioning the government to outlaw in vitro fertilization? Snowflake babies were used for political theater to back this position on ethical grounds, but if you really felt that each embryo represented a life, then you would be campaigning to shut down businesses that specialize in manufacturing babies in test tubes altogether.
Your ETHICS would demand that you do so. Or else there are no ethical dilemmas here at all. You cannot have it both ways. Go ask an ethicist if you don’t believe me.
Secondly (who needs embryonic stem cell therapies anyhow?), your highly accredited career in biology notwithstanding, to make such a determination this early in the game would be unwise. The science being developed and tested here is in its infant stage, and as years go by, there might just be embryonic stem cell therapies developed that could not be reproduced using adult stem cells.
What happens then? If say, for instance, the number of embryonic stem cell therapies being utilized in the market in 10 years outnumbers the adult stem cell therapies being used, would your position change?
Since you used the numbers to make your case…if the numbers suddenly told a different story, would they simply be discarded in lieu of something else to make your case, or would you change your mind?
Finally, I want to focus on this portion of your writing:
If I were to locate a case that proves this statement of yours wrong, would it change your mind?
I’m aware of a therapy carried out in Oregon on a child with (I believe) Batten disease, which affects the brain and is incurable. Heard this from the father on a radio program, and aparently the treatment has so far been a success, with the child going from practically comatose to active in a short amount of time, and the brain cells regenerating more and more each day.
I haven’t got time to look this up now, but if someone else can, I’m sure it’s out there somewhere.
My point being – if ACRU’s arguments prove to be false over time, will the issue be dropped eventually? And if the ethical concerns are so real as to eliminate this research altogether, then why wouldn’t they apply to in vitro fertilization? If you feel that is wrong also, then when is ACRU launching its campaign to shut down fertility clinics?
Peace – DI
Al,
I speak here as a private citizen. This is not an issue that ACRU is involved in. In fact, none of my comments here should be construed to represent the views of the ACRU unless I expressly say it does.
*My* point here is that ethically the case is closed, in my view. The facts just happen to show that embryos show little promise, but the ethical alternatives show a ton. Follow the money. And to answer your question, the great medical advances obtained through Hitler’s experiments on the Jews did not make those experiments good and right, no matter how much we learned from them.
Finally, your claim about violent crime dropping in DC post-gun ban is laughable; I’ve never heard such an absurd statement so divorced from reality. I mean, DC is such a peaceful paradise compared to gun-toting Virginia! The rest of your argument is equally specious: there’s this little thing called the Second Amendment…
Regards,
–Eric
Eric
“follow the money” is correct. Arnold just gave $70 billion for stem cell research in California. Government funded stem cell research = lots of money in with relatively little in returns. We really don’t know where this money goes. But we do know how this type of money tends to compromise pure science. There’s always going to be some researchers who don’t have any ethical boundaries. Nor should they I suppose. But forcing taxpayers to fund this type of thing is unacceptable for many taxpayers (and voters).
Keep in mind that there’s not really any money in bringing up all the objections to stem cell research. But here’s another one. Prions. A google search for “stem cells prions” brings up all sorts a GOOD NEWS about stem cells and prions. But from what I can tell they aren’t able to separate prions (the cause of BSE/ mad cow disease) from stem cells. In fact, with prions they’re entering a whole new arena and just scratching the surface. Right now “stem cell research” looks like a great way to fleece taxpayers. And stem cell treatment looks like a great way to bypass the body’s defenses and spread diseases.
Full response coming, but Bill…”there’s not really any money in bringing up all the objections to stem cell research”…$$ isn’t the motivating factor in this position.
Political Relevance is the reward. Keep that in mind. Jesus healed, and the fundamentalist Christians are nitpicking for political reasons, not because they know (no more than anyone else) that embryonic stem cell research will not yield incredible cures.
This is a very good example of the merchant in the temple. Only instead of money, the reward is a place within the debate.
And then there’s the whole “patenting life” debate. And using taxpayer money to do it. A glimpse of what might be around the corner with this can be seen with the whole Monsanto controversy related to genetically modified organisms.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths small-government Republican’ts (both of you who are left, that is) will go to protect the contents of the womb they insist is the state’s right to regulate.
Almost as bizarre as the equally strong emphasis on state-sponsored murder, i.e., death row executions.
“the killing of the unborn for any reason is repulsive”
Agreed. That’s why I hate God for letting it happen.
David
I’m still a pro choicer.
Good on you, Billy!
It would be good if Al would recognize that my argument has never hung on whether or not embryonic stem cell research will result in cures; my position would not change. I oppose making guinea pigs out of any class of men, even though we’d probably advance our medical science much faster experimenting on and discarding used up men – as the Nazi doctors did – then we do on rats and guinea pigs.
Man’s way is to slaughter his way to results, if he deems it necessary. But patience and wisdom reveals that God provides morally acceptable ways to good ends. Here is an article from Nature that demonstrates further how destroying life for medical benefit is unnecessary, even *if* your only concern is what cures this research might someday provide:
“Simple switch turns cells embryonic”.
David,
It is only inconsistent if you equate limited government with anarchy. But if you believe that the role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property – and that’s it – just as Frederic Bastiat, Leonard Reed, Ron Paul and myself all do (me being an insignificant speck in history compared to the others, of course), then it is perfectly consistent. Not only that, it is essential that we do so. (See also Libertarians for Life for a philosophical approach to the issue from the standpoint of libertarian ethics).
Even there, I, like Ron Paul, am a constitutionalist. The Constitution does not empower the federal government to prosecute murder (the exceptions being assassination and murder within the military). Therefore, the Federal government should be silent and still on the issue – not prosecuting and certainly not taking my money to fund what I see as reprehensible research – or any non-military research, for that matter. But the states do retain the power to prosecute life issues, and I believe they should ban embryonic stem cell research.
Sincerely,
–Eric
Eric,
Very nice. But, the root of the entire discussion is a religious belief, not a constitutional one.
It’s both, actually. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”