[donaldscrankshaw] Donald: Good news on stem cell research

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by Donald:
Good news on stem cell research
http://www.donaldscrankshaw.com/posts/1195688547.shtml


   There's a significant paradigm shift underway in the world of stem
   cell research. It started last week, with the [1]announcement of Ian
   Wilmut, the scientist behind the cloning of Dolly, that he would no
   longer be pursuing therapeutic cloning:

     The scientist who created Dolly the sheep, a breakthrough that
     provoked headlines around the world a decade ago, is to abandon the
     cloning technique he pioneered to create her.
     Prof Ian Wilmut's decision to turn his back on "therapeutic
     cloning", just days after US researchers announced a breakthrough
     in the cloning of primates, will send shockwaves through the
     scientific establishment.
     He and his team made headlines around the world in 1997 when they
     unveiled Dolly, born July of the year before.
     But now he has decided not to pursue a licence to clone human
     embryos, which he was awarded just two years ago, as part of a
     drive to find new treatments for the devastating degenerative
     condition, Motor Neuron disease.
     Prof Wilmut, who works at Edinburgh University, believes a rival
     method pioneered in Japan has better potential for making human
     embryonic cells which can be used to grow a patient's own cells and
     tissues for a vast range of treatments, from treating strokes to
     heart attacks and Parkinson's, and will be less controversial than
     the Dolly method, known as "nuclear transfer."
     His announcement could mark the beginning of the end for
     therapeutic cloning, on which tens of millions of pounds have been
     spent worldwide over the past decade. "I decided a few weeks ago
     not to pursue nuclear transfer," Prof Wilmut said.

   It's been confirmed this week with new articles showing that the
   method that somatic reprogramming, the rival technique that Dr. Wilmut
   has decided to pursue, has been successful for human cells (from
   [2]National Review):

     Todayâs papers bring news of an enormous advance in stem-cell
     research. Scientists in the United States and Japan have managed to
     turn regular human skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem
     cells â achieving what theyâve sought until now through the
     destruction of embryos, but without the need to use embryos, to use
     cloning, or to use eggs.
     It is, to begin with, an extraordinary scientific achievement, with
     immense scientific potential. The new technique is much easier and
     cheaper than the use of embryos in research, and will likely bring
     about an explosion of new work on pluripotent stem cells and their
     applications.
     But it is also, no less importantly, a powerful vindication of the
     premise behind much of the opposition to the destruction of embryos
     for research this past decade: the conviction that scientific
     advance need not require, and should not compel, the abandonment of
     ethical principles, and especially the principle of human equality
     that should cause us to cherish and guard every human life, from
     beginning to end.
     In an effort to cause the country to abandon this conviction, some
     advocates of the research, including nearly every prominent
     Democrat in Congress, have made reckless and irresponsible
     promises, offered false hope to the suffering, depicted their
     opponents as heartless enemies of science, and exploited sick
     people for crass political gain.

   For a long time now, pro-lifers, such as [3]myself, have been saying
   that alternative methods of obtaining stem cells not only exist, but
   show more potential. Now that scientists who have long had a vested
   interest in therapeutic cloning have come to agree (not only Ian
   Wilmut, but also James Thompson, who originally isolated embryonic
   stem cells), it looks like the pendulum has finally swung in our
   direction. For purely practical reasons, scientists will begin moving
   away from embryo destructive research to this new method, and while
   embryonic stem cell research won't go away immediately, the demand for
   funding and more embryonic stem cell lines should fade quickly
   (although not immediately, as politicians such as [4]Senator Harkin
   will continue to push for it). We shouldn't neglect the convictions of
   those who stood in the way of embryonic stem cell research. Columnists
   such as Charles Krauthamer and Kathryn Lopez, politicians such as
   former Massachusetts Governor Romney and President Bush, churches and
   pro-life organizations and voters everywhere all helped. Their
   opposition to embryo destructive research, pushing back hard on the
   media and political tsunami that promised miracles if and only if
   embryonic stem cell research was pursued and accused all opposition as
   being anti-science religious zealots, helped to stem the tide, and
   encouraged (and no doubt forced in some cases) scientists to pursue
   alternate means. Without that, this method, which by all accounts is
   not only less controversial, but also works better, might never have
   been discovered.
   So that's it, we've won, right? Therapeutic cloning is going the way
   of the dodo. Not so fast! We're missing something if we engage in
   triumphalism. This has been won not on principle, but on a
   technicality. Not because we've convinced people that our cause was
   just, but because science saved the day. We were lucky. We knew there
   were alternatives, we knew they looked promising, and thus we had an
   ace in the hole that played out not a moment too soon. Despite what
   some conservatives are saying right now, we cannot know and should not
   expect there to always be a more ethical alternative that delivers on
   all the promises of the unethical method and then some. It's not even
   a sure thing now. Yes, it looks good, but there's always a possibility
   that five years from now, somatic reprogramming will not pan out and
   therapeutic cloning will look like the only way to get the promised
   benefits. That's what Harkin's arguing, and he has a point. The
   general population has already demonstrated that they're willing to
   sacrifice embryos for cures. The fact that there's another, better way
   to get those cures may have stopped them for now, but our job is not
   done. We have some time now, and we need to use it to convince people
   that sacrificing embryos for their own health is not only inefficient,
   it's wrong. Unless we can convince people on the moral argument, we
   will lose the next time the question arises.
   The first step will be the hardest, as it's something pro-lifers have
   been very reluctant to do before now. We need to take a stand on [5]in
   vitro fertilization. Society's acceptance of this, and the pro-life
   movement's unwillingness to confront it, is the reason that embryonic
   stem cell research took us off-guard. While there's no reason to
   oppose IVF in principle, the current methods used are appallingly
   wasteful. The idea behind this fertility method is that redudancy is
   the key to successful pregnancy. This is why many eggs are fertilized
   but never used (resulting in the embryos "destined for destruction"
   which pro-embryonic stem cell activists like to point out). It also
   results in women being implanted with multiple embryos, often
   resulting in an overcrowded womb and a choice between selective
   abortions or children with debilitating birth defects. This
   commoditization of human life has to be opposed. While we shouldn't
   expect to stop it overnight, we can educate the public on it, push for
   less wasteful procedures, and encourage infertile couples to avoid the
   worst ones.

References

   1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/16/scidolly116.xml&page=1
   2. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWIwNjUxNTZkMmU2NDljYWFiY2U4ZWE4ZWVjOGE4ZWY=
   3. http://www.donaldscrankshaw.com/posts/1097758830.shtml
   4. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGE5NjM5YTI1NTJkYjM1ZjA5YWZhY2NiMWY3OTU1YjI=
   5. http://www.donaldscrankshaw.com/posts/1089739846.shtml