Late(ish) on Friday I posted a lengthy slog on the ethics of embryonic stem cells, prompting a fascinating set of comments. It might be worth your time—workday sloggers—to give it a read.
(Comments are disabled on this post, as to not fork the discussion.)
After the jump are a few of my responses to the more interesting challenges made by commenters to my thoughts.
Commenter ‘Nicholas Tolentino’ (cleverly named after a Catholic saint who resurrected dead children; good way to start an honest discussion!) extolled me and others to have faith in science:
If recognition of the humanity of embryos begins to be reflected in research protocols it will not be the end of stem cell research. Induced pluripotent cells may not be perfect yet but they (or some other solution) will be. Do not lack faith in the power of research. The fatalistic passive whining of the past eight years about the miracle cures we have missed out on has been disappointing.
Scientific progress is more a work (not faith) thing. Having faith in something being scientifically possible tends to end in a disaster.
For now, and the foreseeable future, embryonic stem cells are going to be the gold standard. While I agree that iPS cells will be improved from the current state-of-the-art, it’s going to take research on embryonic stem cell lines and iPS cells to get there.
NT goes on later to make the point:
Meanwhile the Japanese (with more restrictive regulations than even Bush imposed) have pushed up their sleeves and pioneered promising ways to obtain stem cells without destroying humans.
Dr. Yamanaka—the Japanese inventor of iPS cells—needed the results from research on human embryonic stem cell research done in the US and elsewhere to figure out the technique. He only succeeded because there were places where the research was less restricted. NT ignores this.
Many have cited the more restrictive German IVF and embryonic stem cell research policies as a model the US should accept. I wrote on these policies quite a while ago, pointing out how this policy has resulted in audacious and ultimately disastrous trials using adult humans:
The strong restrictions on embryonic stem cell research in Germany have resulted in the most aggressive trials of adult stem cell based therapies for heart disease that can be found in Western medicine. The results so far are mixed at best, with weak evidence for any benefit and some potential risk to patients.
These trials are shockingly audacious—going straight from (unreproduced, and largely unreproducible so far) trials in rodents directly to humans, skipping the typical large-animal studies. Here is where the strong concern for protecting embryos results in adult human beings—unquestionably human life—being put at risk. Looking at all the evidence so far, embryonic stem cell derived heart cells are superior to adult stem cells in helping rodents recover from heart attacks. Large animal trials of the embryonic stem cell therapies are just now beginning—properly so—before trials in humans begin. The FDA might be a pain-in-the-ass, but they still can do a decent job of protecting human life, including adult human life, from harm during trials.
A great deal of suffering has been caused by these trials—unnecessary suffering to adult humans fully conscious of their suffering.
Finally, mr. herriman brings up cord blood stem cells:
When my first kid was born, we donated the umbilical cord so they could harvest the stem cells from it. Filled out the form, took the HIV test, and right after the birth, the Fed Ex guy came with a cooler and whisked it off to California.
It seems to me that the whole ethical argument could be sidestepped entirely if the practice of harvesting them from umbilical cords became standard practice. Can anyone tell me why this has not yet become protocol? I have asked many times and have yet to be given a satisfactory answer.
Cord blood stem cells are not the same as embryonic stem cells. They are already committed to become only cell types found in the blood (or perhaps blood vessels). I’ve worked with cord blood stem cells—and I deeply appreciate mr. herriman’s and others donations—they are not a replacement for true pluripotent stem cells.
