Much Ado About Division

This decade has seen much hype, hope, and debate about a particular thing—stem cells—which prospectively will serve to cure numerous afflictions. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells—that is, they have no cellular type, whether it is as a nervous cell, as a muscle cell, or whatever else—and can, as such, undergo differentiation to become any type. When differentiated, they can be transplanted into an organism—say, a mouse, as in typical stem cell research, or into a human, given research goes successfully in the next years—and replace injured cells and tissues. Researchers believe they have the potential to treat cancers, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer's, spinal cord damage, and beyond. Frankly, it would not be too extreme to say that stem cells come very close to a panacea for serious medical problems.

Note: click above picture to see enlarged image which demonstrates the process of culturing embryonic cells, and for a further, more technical explanation of stem cells (i.e., if you're interested in all this mumbo jumbo about differentiation, totipotency, and the like, see the video at the bottom)
Source: http://seedmagazine.com/

So then, why aren’t stem cells used as common medical treatment for conditions like leukemia? Partial answer: the research isn’t entirely there. Fuller answer: the research is not there yet because there had been a federal ban on stem cell research. In order to understand this, one must understand that there are two general types of stem cells: embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells, the former of which has been the subject of much debate over the morality of research in this area. Those who stand against embryonic stem cell research—generally conflated into the pro-life group—contend that such research can only occur at the expense of human lives. Those responding hold, meanwhile, that the embryos are so early in development as to not really be so human yet. And, even withstanding this necessary line drawing, scientists are firm in their convictions that both adult and embryonic stem cells need to be aggressively pursued.

My opinion: stem cell research, embryonic and adult, are both acceptable and necessary (by virtue of their immense potential offerings). Specifically, I subscribe to the utilitarian point of view—that is, the costs, in my opinion, outweigh the benefits. Chiefly, I do not equate embryos to human life (blastocysts, as they are technically called, possess no human features), and beyond that I have to say that the cost of one embryo is not nearly as great as the possibility of many diseases and conditions being treated by stem cells. If I had to equate an embryo to anything, I would equate it to the potential for life, so when I become no less rational but slightly more ridiculous, I go as far as to say that if a person (say, someone pro-life) values human life so much, he or she should mate with the first female or male, respectively, in sight. Again and again, too. You value the potential for life, eh? So do I! One really cannot deny that the coupling of a male and a female is potential for life, too, but alas, the reductio ad absurdum probably is nary so appeasing or adequate (even if it true—more or less) as it is...well, absurd.

Fortunately, however, the argument no longer needs to be made! Long ago (July 19, 2006) George W. Bush made the first usage of his vetoing power to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act on July 19, 2006. Bear in mind, too, that Bush authorized federal funding from August of 2001 on for only 15 lines of stem cells. August 2001. However, on March 9th—last month—Barack Obama finally lifted this federal ban, stating in his speech: "I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research — and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."




What does this mean? Well, researchers no longer have to rely on private funding for stem cell research, so now that federal resources will be allocated to this research, a greater number of studies and research groups are sure to pop up. And what does that mean? That means we are sure to now get closer to the prize at the end of the road (curing diseases, remedying conditions) faster. In fact, important strides have already been made since Obama's lifting of this federal ban. A recent study revealed that stem cells may literally free diabetics from insulin. Stem cells are extracted from a person, and the person's own stem cells are re-injected into them, generating a new immune system that no longer attacks and kills the insulin-producing cells. The patients in the study were free from insulin injections for years, and yet this research is still entirely preliminary. With such promise so early on, it is crazy when one hears researchers and scientists saying the maximum benefits of stem cells won't likely be achieved for ten years.

Still, while the ban on federal funding has been lifted, adequate funding is not necessarily ensured. The necessary funds must be allocated to intensive research on the grounds that millions have the potential to be saved each year. And, for those who still have the moral conflict, rest assured that actions are being taken to get the embryos (but not the embryonic cells) out of the picture. What I'm getting at is the ability for reserachers to actually revert adult cells to embryonic stem cells (yes, this is possible—isn't science wonderful?). The problem (until recently), however, is that the methods mainly employed relied on viruses which alter the DNA (the genetic material that determines what type of a cell one is, what the cell does, etc.) of the adult cells, potentially causing them to grow out of control and become tumors. New research, however, has revealed safer ways to create these stem cells (ways that don't involve messing with adult cell's DNA, so no risk of uncontrollable growth). So, what's this mean? No more embryos eventually. Once these methods are perfected, there will be no more need for moral quibbling—and then, goodbye to social debates and uncertainty!

It really is wonderful, though, and hugely important that Obama has lifted the ban on federal funding. It shocks me to some extent that the needs of the few (the embryos) were concluded to outweigh the needs of the many (the millions with diseases that could be treated with stem cells). Moral and ethical quandaries shouldn't, in my opinion, occupy such a huge place in policy-making when it comes to saving lives.

I must acknowledge, however, that when further advancements are made in the area of stem cells, there may be some issues that arise: since stem cells have the potential to replace old and/or injured cells, stem cells could potentially be used to extend one's life. Just think of it: there is the potential to, for example, replace your heart with a new one, thereby extending your life, and beyond the extension of one's life, it's possible to merely use stem cells for beauty/youth treatment. Stem cells may very well be a real fountain of youth.

Who can say what will happen though? Only time will tell where research takes stem cells. The potential of stem cells are immense - coincidentally so because of the literal potential of the cells to differentiate into any specialized cell. May all expectations and more be exceeded, and may no one's sensibilities or creeds feel impeded.

If you're interested in the technical madness of stem cells, I suggest you watch this video: