Stem Cell Policy

Final Posting - Stem Cell Research is the Way of the Future

2009-12-03T11:31:00.000-08:00

There has been much controversy in the press recently about the ethics and viability of stem cell research. To understand this ongoing debate, it is useful to understand the history of this field. Scientists first became interested in stem cells in the 1800s, when the ability of some cells to generate different types of cells was first discovered. The 1980s and 1990s saw the discovery of new techniques for targeting and altering genetic material and methods for growing human cells in the laboratory. In 1998, James Thomson removed cells from spare embryos at fertility clinics and established the world’s first human embryonic stem cell line. Today, stem cells are being used in treatments for over 100 conditions including leukemia, heart disease, and Hunter’s syndrome.

But what exactly is a stem cell, you ask? Stem cells are distinguished from other cell types by two important characteristics. First, they are unspecialized cells capable of renewing themselves through cell division, sometimes after long periods of inactivity. Second, under certain physiologic or experimental conditions, they can be induced to become tissue- or organ-specific cells with special functions. The specific factors and conditions that allow stem cells to remain unspecialized are of great interest to scientists. Addressing questions about cell differentiation may lead scientists to find new ways to control stem cell differentiation in the laboratory, thereby growing cells or tissues that can be used for cell-based therapies.

So why hasn’t more been done in this exciting field of research? Unfortunately, the major restrictions on stem cell research in the US are not limitations of scientific technology or knowledge. Rather, politicians have imposed laws limiting embryonic stem cell research. This entire field is fraught with controversy. Many religious individuals are morally bothered by the idea of destroying the lives of embryos for the sake of scientific research. Others view the subject from a Utilitarian perspective, stating that the anticipated benefits of the research outweigh the costs of conducting it. Still others argue that this research is ethically sound because blastocysts are not human – a reflection of the imperative bioethical question of when an embryo becomes a life with a right to personhood. Politicians are routinely guided by their personal religious and moral views, and the field of stem cell research is not exempt from this. Church and state are not always as separate as they should be.

In 2001, President George W. Bush signed an executive order banning the National Institutes of Health from providing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research beyond using the sixty or so cell lines that already existed. This past March, President Barack Obama reversed Bush’s decision. He promised to make it easier for federally funded researchers to acquire new stem cell lines. Yet not much has happened since. Obama has done little to back up his previous promises. What a shame: stem cell research has the potential to cure or treat hundreds of different diseases – and save billions of dollars in the process.

The United States’ strict restrictions on embryonic stem cell research have caused the US to fall by the wayside as other countries (with fewer restrictions) take the lead. Great Britain, Israel, and China are some of the technological leaders in this field. All have adequate funding and government support. Also, the cultural climate in each of these countries is amenable to stem cell research. Perhaps the United States should model its stem cell policies after the successful strategies employed by Great Britain, Israel and China. Brilliant scientists are leaving America in droves, heading to countries where their research is not as restricted. If America does not soon make efforts to catch up to the world leaders in stem cell research, it may be too late.

Exciting advances in stem cell therapies are currently being made all across the world. French scientists have used the HIV virus as a vector to transplant the stem cells present in bone marrow into patients with adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD), a disease that destroys the myelin coating on nerve fibers in the brain. They have successfully halted the progression of brain damage caused by ALD with this technology. The FDA is overseeing Phase I clinical trials in which embryonic stem cells are being used to treat spinal cord injuries. The United States is also using banked umbilical cord blood to treat cerebral palsy. Stem cell research is steadily gaining momentum – even in the United States.

But will stem cell therapy be affordable to potential patients? Without affordability, the therapies will never take off. In California, there was a measure taken to help ensure cheaper medicines for state residents. California’s Proposition 71 created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) in 2004, which authorized it to issue $3 billion in grants over ten years for embryonic stem cell and other biomedical research. CIRM aims to support collaboration between scientists and drive down the costs of stem cell research and medicine. If CIRM is successful, it can lead the way for much more innovation in the biomedical world and shed light on stem cell therapy’s financial viability.

As the number of applications for the use of stem cell therapies increases, it seems that the field has a big future in the realm of biotechnology. We have collected articles arguing that embryonic stem cell research does not always have to be applied toward specific diseases – rather there is potential for universal cancer vaccines and treatment therapies for neurodegenerative disorders, for example. By being able to use these cells to treat both specific and non-specific conditions that affect large populations, it seems that the research has the potential to be more viable. In fact, as underlying cellular mechanisms of embryonic stem cells are understood more clearly, scientists will have even more reason to encourage federal funding.

In order to advance stem cell exploration and further the fascinating research that has been mounting in the last two or three years, policy changes must accompany research strides. Economically, stem cell research makes sense. The therapy has so much promise; many diseases and injuries could potentially be cured using stem cell therapy, including Alzheimer’s disease and spinal-cord injuries. Millions, if not billions, of dollars in hospitalizations and healthcare-related expenditures could be saved every year. With the ability to quickly and permanently cure so many diseases, hospital admissions would drastically drop, and the length of hospital stays would decrease. This would save insurers, taxpayers, and the government millions of dollars. There would be more money available to spend on the fight to make universal healthcare a reality. If that’s not an incentive for Obama to focus more effort on improving opportunities for stem cell research, what is?

Though deeply rooted in politics, ethics, religion and global perspective, the controversy over stem cell research is always going to exist. The best way to address this? Scientists must continue to advocate for the technology and prove that it does have critical applications for patients of this generation. The more evidence supplied in support of the cells’ efficacy, the increased likelihood that the research will become more sustainable. Our group firmly believes that stem cell research is the way of the future. While some will always be morally opposed to embryonic stem cell research, we feel that the potential benefits for millions of patients outweigh the negatives. We support stem cell research – including embryonic stem cell research.

The Power to Divide: Stem Cells

2009-11-30T11:53:00.000-08:00

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0507/feature1/index.html

**Photo courtesy of Max Aguilera-Hellweg, M.D. of National Geographic

This website was orignially published in 2005 by National Geographic, but it has since been updated to reflect the latest scientific advances in the field of stem cell research. The interactive article page is informative and insightful, perfect for the layman to understand. The photographs are also eye-catching. Those interested in what research is currently being conducted and what the future holds for stem cells can find information here. There is also a discussion forum where one can see others' opinions on the various topics and voice their own. Take a look and tell us what you think!

2009-11-22T19:17:00.000-08:00

“Innovation in Biomedicine: Can Stem Cell Research Lead the Way to Affordability?” PLoS Medicine, May 2006. Web. 19 Nov. 2009. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/pmc/articles/PMC1382006/pdf/pmed.0030126.pdf>.

The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) was created by California’s Proposition 71 in 2004 which authorized it to issue $3 billion in grants, funded by bonds, over ten years for embryonic stem cell and other biomedical research. It is claimed to be the world’s largest single supporter of research in stem cells. The incentives for California include royalties from new therapies, more jobs, and access to cheaper medicines for state residents.

In the current field of research, researchers are encouraged to acquire patents and this has raised the bar and drives researchers to avoid the field. CIRM aims to support collaboration by requiring grant recipients to donate the exclusive license to any insight or technology to a common patent supervised by a nonprofit organization. This will serve as a place where scientists can receive low-cost licenses for further research. Combined with this patent pool will be a prize incentive for companies that collaborate to produce a successful stem cell therapy. Not only will CIRM reduce the cost of research in stem cell therapy and encourage innovation, it will provide affordable medicine. The “shared prize model” eliminates 30%-40% of pharmaceutical industry revenue generated by wasteful marketing costs. It also does not fund research and development of duplicates to medicines that are out on the market. California hopes to reform the biomedical system by changing how government, medical researchers, and the private sector interact.

Do California taxpayers need assurances that they will benefit from any products developed from the research? The institutions getting grants have ties to drug companies have the public at doubt. There is potential for fear that the stem-cell effort could wind up benefiting private companies at taxpayers’ expense. It is almost necessary that the state requires that drugs developed by stem-cell researchers and their affiliated companies be affordable. However, it is essential for universities to have ties with biomedical companies to enhance the research effort. The real solution will come when the interactions between researchers, the government, and private companies. If CIRM is successful, it will pave the way for much more innovation in the biomedical world in the 21st century. A revolution in the biomedical field will be a major breakthrough in healthcare policy.

-Vaishali Mittal

The Future of Stem Cell Research - A Vaccine for Cancer?

2009-11-22T12:52:00.000-08:00

Paddock, Catharine. "Stem Cells May Provide Vaccine For Colon Cancer." Medical News Today. MediLexicon International Ltd, 8 Oct. 2009. Web. 15 Nov. 2009. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/166696.php>.

The field of stem cell research is advancing, slowly but surely. While the changes in stem cell policy are (as of yet) small, they are paving the way for fantastic future applications and discoveries involving stem cells. One potential future use of stem cells is a vaccine preventing cancer.

The University of Connecticut Stem Cell Institute has shown that human embryonic stem cells injected into mice consistently promote an anti-tumor immune response against colon cancer cells. Other scientists have used stem cells in an attempt to vaccinate against cancer, but the University of Connecticut vaccine is the first to “trick” the host’s immune system into believing it had cancer and trigger a cancer-fighting response. In the past, scientists have attempted to target antigens, such as proteins, on the surface of the cancer cells. So far, the University of Connecticut’s study has only been performed in mice (with promising results), but in the future, who knows what will happen? Perhaps someday scientists will have the technology and knowledge to create a universal vaccine for cancer.

Cancer is the number-two cause of death in America. More than 500,000 Americans die from cancer each year. If a universal vaccine for cancer becomes a reality, more than half a million lives will be saved each year. An effective cancer vaccine would be significantly less expensive than providing for the millions of people fighting cancer each year. Billions of dollars could be saved annually. Funding for a universal cancer vaccine makes economic sense. Now the technology (and regulatory practices in the US) just needs to catch up.

- Annie Bonaccorso

How can Scientists Advance Embryonic Stem Cell Research in the Future?

2009-11-19T23:09:00.000-08:00

Lovell-Badge, Robin. "The future for stem cell research." Nature 414. (2001): 88-91. Web. 15 Nov 2009. Article Link.

Stem cell research has come a long way in the last decade. In the future, scientists look toward times when stem cells can be used to regenerate organs, facilitate regrowth of neural tissue in devastating neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s and as a treatment therapy for diabetes. With such a hopeful future and with everything that has already been discovered, there are still tremendous strides to be made – especially in such a politically charged, ethically sensitive arena.

Among several research elements still in need of more investigation is the use of single cells versus the use of a population of stem cells. In fact, one of the major limitations of recent experiments is that they are rarely performed with single cells. By using a population of cells, a scientist is testing a number of different cells, all carrying various potentials. By using a single cell, a scientist will be able to determine if that specific cell carries an unusual potential to differentiate into some tissue type (as opposed to whether a number of cells in a population have low to no probability of differentiating into that same tissue type). The solution for identifying single cells? Better stem cell markers.

And what about identifying optimal environments that facilitate stem cell differentiation? There are several components that determine ‘self renewal’ of a cell and its path towards determination – mainly membrane contact and influence of growth factors. If scientists could control for these factors, they could manipulate the ratio of stem to differentiated cells, as well as the rate of cellular proliferation. This caveat is problematic partly because scientists don’t yet fully understand the cellular mechanisms of embryonic stem cells – a wall that will transiently prevent the advance of any cell-based therapy.

As previously mentioned, molecular mechanisms of stem cells and their genetic properties continue to elude scientists. In fact, what are the cellular mechanisms underlying embryonic stem cells? How are these cells related to cancer cells? What molecular factors influence cellular differentiation? What if scientists could identify specific genes that permitted self-renewal and proliferation, or genes that promoted differentiation? These questions are so vast, yet we are forced to look to the future of stem cell therapy and research to yield the answers …

And what if we begin to answer these questions? The future of stem cell research will be in regenerative, cellular-based therapy. Scientists can further study neurodegenerative disorders, limb regeneration and reprogrammable cells. If it weren’t for policy, ‘evil’ scientists might turn toward human cloning and non-medicinal therapies. For this reason, and for the ambiguity withheld in the future of stem cells, research and policy will have to proceed hand-in-hand – as long as they share a collaborative relationship that promotes innovation and novelty within the field.

~ Courtney Mannino

Cord Blood as Stem Cell Experimental Treatment in Girl with Cerebral Palsy

2009-11-19T20:48:00.000-08:00

Doyle, Jessica R. "Cord Blood Reverses Cerebral Palsy in Colorado Girl." Fox News Network. 9 Nov. 2009. Web. 12 Nov. 2009. <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573265,00.html>.

Photo Copyright Fox News Group and Jenny Levine

Now that Annie, Vaishali, Courtney and I have given you a background on not only the biological processes and history of stem cell research, but also the political and ethical concerns surrounding the research and therapies of such biotechnology, we would like to now shift the focus of this blog to the meat of the matter: examining the current and future roles that stem cells have in science and health care. For example, what is stem cell technology used for today? What potential future does it hold not only in our country but also the world? How does this technology fit into our current health care system, FDA and NIH regulatory and governing bodies, as well a future business potential?

The article/Fox News Video story I chose as one of my last posts is about a girl named Chloe who suffered from a stroke while still in the womb. As a result, she suffers from Cerebral Palsy. Her parents, the Levine’s, noticed symptoms when Chloe was around nine months old. As she grew, her motor and speech skills seemed increasingly odd and the symptoms became more apparent (such as rigid and weak motion in one side of the body and speech pathology). Only when they took her to a specialist, they realized how severe these deficits were and what the cause was. Initial treatment included physical, speech and occupational therapy. The family looked into all their options to offer Chloe the best treatments and therapies possible.

The Levine’s, being forward-thinking and well-prepared, had banked Chloe’s umbilical cord blood around the time of her birth. Umbilical cord blood, especially one's own, is a viable source of healthy young stem cells absent of viruses or chemicals. The chances of rejection of one's own cord blood are nearly zero. According to David Zitlow of the Cord Blood Registry, “umbilical cord cells are smart – once they are re-infused into the body, they migrate to the exact spot of injury and help the damaged cells or tissue repair itself.”

With Chloe, they took stem cells from her banked umbilical cord blood and re-infused it back into her via IV transfusion, followed by a 4-hour fluid flush. Within days, her family noticed her symptoms taper. Chloe is part of a pre-clinical trial at Duke University, examining the effectiveness of umbilical cord blood in treating Cerebral Palsy in children.

I really like this article because it is a perfect example of why it should be mandatory that hospitals bank children’s umbilical cord blood for future use. The potential for this technology is seemingly endless. Moreover, this is truly something everyone can support: it is a painless procedure, the only associated costs are storage and retrieval, and it is ethically sound (compared to embryonic stem cell research as discussed in our previous posts). This blood can be used as a natural alternative to chemical therapies and should not just be thrown away! It only seems right that our government fund research on the potential of umbilical cord blood stem cells, as this technology is not particularly controversial and is supported by many, such as scientists, health care workers, policy makers, and those opposed to other types of stem cell research.

-Margeaux Berroth
Brown University Class of 2011
Human Biology Concentrator

1st FDA Approved Clinical Trial with Embryonic Stem Cells

2009-11-17T18:36:00.000-08:00

Pollack, Andrew. "FDA Approves a Stem Cell Trial." The New York Times. 23 Jan 2009. The New York Times, Web. 11 Nov 2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/business/23stem.html>.

Shortly after President Obama's inauguration in January of this year, the FDA approved the world's first clinical trial for a therapy derived from human embryonic stem cells. This trial will include 8 – 10 participants with severe spinal cord injuries. Stem cells are to be injected into the damaged site 1 – 2 weeks after the injury, as this is the optimal time frame believed to facilitate this type of therapy. Geron, a California based biotechnology company, announced the clearance of the clinical trial. This approval marked a research milestone. Just months before in March 2008, the trial was rejected on the basis that the proposal ‘lacked sufficient data.’ Others like to argue that there was severe ‘political overhang’ from the Bush administration.

The trial has been deemed Phase I – aimed mainly at testing the safety of the therapy. Despite the fact that Geron had identified 7 medical centers across the country that expressed interest in participating in the trial (pending approval through their Institutional Review Boards), there is still some uncertainty about whether this is an ‘appropriate’ trial to conduct. If the therapy is unsafe or does not work, there might be a public backlash against the scientific community – halting any existing embryonic stem cell research and severely crippling the field.

In defense of the notion that this first trial might not be successful, Geron argues that the purpose of the trial is safety, not efficacy. Though practical, this statement is unnerving because the scientists don’t know what results they will yield from the experiment. At best, the participants will experience some restoration of nerve tissue surrounding their spinal cord damage. At worst, the trial will be a disaster. For the sake of the scientific community, let’s hope for the former.

Geron's proposal of 22,000 pages discussed the success of the therapy in small animal models and evidence that the cells did not form tumors in these animals - one of the main concerns surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells. What about the total cost of the application and preclinical research? $45 million. For a company that has not yet been profitable, this trial is risky to say the least. But maybe it is risk and ingenuity that are necessary to get this type of research off the ground.

The approval of this trial was a remarkable benchmark set forth by the U.S. government and scientific community. Though Geron has put its company’s future in an uncertain place, it is such innovative investigation and pioneering attitude that will further the research of embryonic stem cells as a treatment therapy. I think this work is incredibly interesting and powerful. Powerful enough to change the minds of adversaries to stem cell research? This will depend on the outcome of the trial … as will the future of embryonic stem cell research, the future of Geron, the future of policy in the United States, and the future of those patients who would probably do anything for a cure.

~ Courtney Mannino

Gene Therapy and Cell Therapy

2009-11-16T17:31:00.000-08:00

Neergaard, Lauran. "New gene therapy halts 2 boys' rare brain disease - Yahoo! News." Yahoo! News. The Associated Press, 5 Nov. 2009. Web. 13 Nov. 2009. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_med_gene_therapy.

Stem cell therapies, while still limited by legal and ethical restrictions, have advanced by leaps and bounds since the field’s inception. One of the most exciting advances in the field occurred recently: the combination of gene and cell therapy.

To treat adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD), a genetic disease that destroys the myelin coating of nerve fibers in boys’ brains, French scientists disabled the HIV virus so that it could not cause AIDS and used it to transplant bone marrow. Bone marrow transplants stop ALD by allowing new stem cells that can form myelin to take root. The problem with curing ALD, prior to now, has been finding a vector with which to transport the marrow. HIV is a disease that permanently invades all cells, making it a perfect vector. Scientists were able to genetically correct the boys’ bone marrow stem cells and implant them in the body by infecting them with deactivated HIV. Two years later, the boys’ brain damage shows no signs of worsening and 15% of their cells now produce the beneficial proteins received in the stem cell transplant.

What does this mean for the future of medicine? If this treatment can be replicated, then many similar diseases to ALD could also be halted – or even cured. The technological ability to correct patients’ bone marrow stem cells and return them to the patient via deactivated HIV is incredibly promising for treatment of cancer, as well as various genetic diseases. While ALD is too rare for a cure to have much sway in the current healthcare debates, the possibility of a cure for some strains of cancer is tantalizing. A cure for cancer would save hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid every year. And if there’s one thing that lawmakers today can agree on, it is that we need to find ways to save money in these hard economic times. There is still a huge divide between policymakers on the ethical ramifications of stem cell research, but financially, stem cell research makes sense.

- Annie Bonaccorso

Wesley J. Smith: Stem cell debate is over ethics, not science

2009-11-15T23:18:00.000-08:00

Smith, Wesley J. "Stem cell debate is over ethics, not science." The Sacramento Bee [Sacramento] 19 Mar. 2009: 19A. 19 Mar. 2009. Web. 12 Nov. 2009. <http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1711235.html?pageNum=1&&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container>.

For my next article, I decided to take a less information-based approach. I wanted to find an opinion article that probes the controversy surrounding stem cell policy and the ethics of embryonic stem cell research in the United States. I sought an article that would have a format that allowed for the public to respond to the article and provide their personal opinions.

Luckily, I was able to find such an article. Wesley J. Smith, a special consultant for the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a senior fellow in human rights and bioethics at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, published the opinion article posted above in the Sacramento Bee soon after President Obama lifted Bush's policy on stem cell research last March. This article gives the reader insight into stem cell research in Seattle as well as the political climate surrounding stem cell research in California.

Smith's article had a some informative points on both Bush's and Obama's stem cell policies. I especially enjoyed when Smith made it a point to say that, "...the question raised by embryonic stem cell research is whether it is morally right to treat and exploit human life – even at the nascent stage – as a mere natural resource." This is a bold, clear and ethically valid statement for such significantly important research, research that could have improve the lives millions, save thousands of lives, billions of dollars on medical expenses, research in other biotechnology, etc.; the list goes on. But the question is, when exactly does human life start? And based on your own personal beliefs as to when that time is, do you think we should invest our money into a science concerned with such sensitive issues that have the potential to change our world forever (for better or worse)?

Please view my last post about the comparisons between other countries' trailblazing stem cell research, and specifically, read my response to Israel's stem cell campaign and how it relates to religion. As much as the questions purposed above are purely moral and ethical ones, how those questions relate specifically to policy in the USA is really a matter mostly concerning Christianity. This presence of religion in politics exists today in our country and is a contributing factor in why America, in particular, is lagging behind in taking a clear position on stem cell research as a whole and what kind of regulations to establish.

-Margeaux Berroth
Brown University Class of 2011
Human Biology Concentrator

A Global Comparison on Stem Cell Research Exploring Religion, Ethics, and Policy: Based on a Four Part Series by Public Radio International

2009-11-15T22:14:00.001-08:00

Boyd, Clark, Mary K. Magistad, and Aaron Schachter. "The Global Race for Stem Cell Therapies." The World from BBC, PRI,WGBH. Public Radio International: Global Perspectives for an American Audience. Chicago, Illinois, 29 Apr. 2005. Public Radio International. 29 Apr. 2005. Web. 12 Nov. 2009. <http://www.pri.org/theworld/?q=node/3607>.

Image above copyright MBBNet.umn.edu

What direction globe headed in with stem cell research and therapy? What country is leading the way in research and why? Public Radio International did a wonderful exploratory four part series back in late April 2005 comparing four very different countries progress (or lack thereof) in stem cell research and their current status in the “race”, taking into account not just the science but also ethics, religion, policy, and regulation.

The (Not So Mighty) USA

This four part series begins with correspondent Clark Boyd's account of America’s history in stem cell research, describing United States current status on research and policy, drawing insight and commentary from scientists, doctors, politicians, and committee leaders.

In particular, he talks with George Daley, a Harvard Medical School stem cell researcher about the need for societal and governmental support in stem cell research in this country. In 2001, George W. Bush took a stance on stem cell research, restricting scientists from working on embryonic stem cells harvested after a new governmental policy was established allowing research with government funding. Part of what is holding the United States back, aside from the lack of government funding and nationwide support, is the limited availability technology and materials. Old embryos do not provide nearly as accurate results as fresh ones and therefore are a wasted investment. Daley made a great analogy that we all can relate to by stating simply that, “…working with outdated stem cells is like using an outdated operating system on a computer…”.

Daley and Boyd highlighted that the fact that America right now is experiencing a real brain drain in this kind of research. Great scientists educated in the US cannot do their research here if they want to be competitive, so they leave to places like China, Britain, and Israel. In these countries, there is promise of potential, growth, support and funding to effectively search for solutions to pertinent medical problems.

The Big GB- Stem Cell Research in Britain

Great Britain is the leader in embryonic stem cell research and has been for years. This is largely due to effective regulation, which instills trust between scientists and the public. Early on, Great Britain viewed stem cell research as a lucrative opportunity and took advantage of the scientific opportunity.

In the 1980s, Parliament organized a committee to specifically address ethical concerns and scientific research limitations. They came to the conclusion that, “Scientists can ethically, use early embryos for research purposes, but, that any such research work should be strictly regulated.” From that committee came the birth of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority in 1990. The job of this organization, as illustrated by the chair, Suzi Leather, is to

Control what Scientists and Doctors do with research and therapeutic applications
The instill public confidence that the embryos and research are put to use for the greater good, meaning that some crazy scientist isn’t in the back of the lab using the funding and technology to clone a girlfriend.

Scientists and doctors from Great Britain interviewed for this segment supporting the research (a few from the USA) had described the process for approval more “bureaucratic” than they would like it to be, but effective never the less.

The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, overseers of this study, sets the standard for other countries wishing to invest deeply in stem cell research.

China- The “Wild West” of Stem Cell Research

The third installment in this four-part series on stem cell research is by the World's Mary Kay Magistad, reporting from Beijing. Magistad begins the segment about what China is doing with their research on stem cells with Dr. Zhao, an American educated Medical scientist who decided to move back to China to seek opportunities in stem cell research not available anywhere else in the world. Dr. Zhao has worked on all types of stem cells, and has explicitly stated that Chinese people and their government harbor the same view on this research: overwhelming support. This, as stated by Karin Sederek, an American paralyzed seeking alternatives in China, is because China's Confucian culture describes, “Human life is seen to begin at birth, not at conception”. Dr. Huang, a Rutgers-educated doctor at Beijing's West Hill Hospital, is attempting to cure Sederek's paralysis with cutting edge neuronal stem cell therapy, and he believes that “it's unethical not to use aborted fetuses and embryos for medical work”.

China is rapidly advancing in the field of regenerative medicine, hoping to use stem cell research to cure and treat a myriad of diseases afflicting people across the globe. They are pumping money into labs, hospitals, and facilities for stem cell research and therapy, regulating very little, hoping a breakthrough will elevate China into a “scientific superpower” status, and maybe garnering a few Nobel prizes on the way.

Israel- Holy Land of…Embryonic Stem Cells Created in Labs, Not Wombs?

“Judaic duty to care for the sick trumps ethical concerns over the rights of embryos created in the laboratory.”

Correspondent Aaron Schachter tops off the search comparing stem cell research and policy globally with the final segment, which focuses on Israel.

Israeli lawmakers declare that embryos created outside the womb are not against Jewish law, as opposed to harvested embryos created inside a womb. This segment takes a deeply religious element and weaves it into the motivation for stem cell research, in Israel specifically.

This segment provides a stark contrast between the religious involvements on stem cell research in the United States versus Israel. In the United States, many people, Christians in particular, argue that life begins in the womb at conception, and that that is precious. Israelis believe the same. However, in the United States, that stance is used as a weapon against all forms of embryonic stem cell research (both in a petri dish and in a womb). It is interesting to me that such a deeply religious country is spearheading such a scientific project. However, Rabbi Weiner points out that this medical science is based on the fundamental Jewish principle called “pikuach nefesh”, meaning that one must do all that one can to save a human life.

Israeli stem cell research is tightly regulated with stringent requirements for publishing, peer-reviewing, and the like. Scientists must go before a committee to state an intent in research to gain permission for further study, and cannot pay for a woman’s eggs or use such research to clone a human being. Israel was able to get ahead in research and development relative to the rest of the world because they had the ability to tackle ethical, political, and regulatory issues very early on. Professor Shraga Blazer of the Rambam Medical Center in Haifa who chaired a committee that established some of Israel’s stem cell research regulations, expressed his belief that “the benefit [of embryonic stem cell research] is much, much beyond the fear of the slippery slope."

Israel allocates public and private funds for this research, both of which are regulated by Israeli law. Israel is leading research on regenerate livers using stem cells, and is the sole innovator of a stem-cell based pacemaker that could one day replace electronic pacemakers.

-Margeaux Berroth
Brown University Class of 2011
Human Biology Concentrator

Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

2009-11-15T19:24:00.000-08:00

Kruse, Laura. "Stem Cell Research: Ethical Considerations." WPXI: Pittsburgh News. 11 15 2006. Web. 12 Nov 2009. Article Link.

Stem cell ethics are deeply interwoven in political debate, moral discussions and religious paradigms. Controversy is not inherently linked to one group or the other – rather there appears to be some universal arguments for and against embryonic stem cell research. Based on Laura Kruse’s article, it seems that no matter how well scientists advocate for embryonic stem cell research and promise valuable therapies for the future, there will always be ethical quandaries shadowing the research’s many anticipated benefits.

Embryonic stem cells are more useful than adult stem cells and demonstrate more promise for generating specialized tissue (like nerve tissue). Some argue from a Utilitarian perspective – the anticipated benefits of the research outweigh the costs of conducting it. Others argue that this research is ethically sound because blastocysts are not human – a reflection of the imperative, truly individualistic, bioethical question of when an embryo becomes a life with a right to personhood. Finally, people argue that these cells are good for research methodology because they can be ‘recycled’ from IVF clinics that would otherwise destroy and discard the unused embryos.

Kruse’s article is also especially interesting because she acknowledges that a significant source of resistance to embryonic stem cell research is the unknown variable that it elicits. There are still lots of ‘unknowns’ surrounding the research and this might scare the general public because they might see science as becoming this overwhelming, manipulative vector in society that can abuse human cells – especially if the public does not understand the methodology of the science. And what about human cloning? I’m sure that’s another thought on some people’s radar …

In addition to fear of the potential power that science might acquire, other individuals argue that embryos are lives and that we should be exploring other alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. Some think that the promise of this research has been overstated and scientists should utilize adult stem cells to advance therapies. But one might counter with, ‘Isn’t it unethical to not conduct research aiming toward treatments of severe conditions, including neurodegenerative diseases, that scientists believe can truly be treated with embryonic stem cells? The debate goes round and round …

Kruse’s article was printed in 2006. Since than, Obama has been elected President and has issued an Executive Order entitled Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells. At the time there were no clinical trials in existence using stem cells, though this group has identified several articles (to be posted in the next group of 6) that discuss preliminary stem cell research and even an FDA approved clinical trial!

In summary, embryonic stem cell research is heavily rooted in bioethics. Proponents argue the implications of removing stem cells and destroying human embryos, the potential for unused embryos in IVF clinics, and the age-old debate of when an embryo is considered to be a human. Is this at the time of implantation to the uterine wall? Maybe with the first heartbeat? Yet others argue this is established with the first wave or brain activity. The truth is there is no one answer.

The ethics are complicated and they continue to divide policymakers. The immediate questions surrounding the debate are whether public money should be spent on research, how the debate will determine the outcome of public policy and if opponents to stem cell research should stop others from engaging in it. It is unlikely that these questions will be resolved anytime soon but it will also be exciting to see policy change throughout Obama’s administration. Maybe more research is what’s needed to convince others that stem cells are a viable treatment option. Besides, scientists have invested too much already to abandon this innovative research that has the potential to revolutionize biotechnology.

~ Courtney Mannino