The Red Market: Stem Cells
If there was ever a key to unlock immortality, embryonic stem cells would be the closest match. Embryonic stem cells, or ESCs, are “stem cells derived from the undifferentiated inner mass cells of a human embryo” which can grow into the 220 body cell types that make up the human body (Science Daily). In other words, ESCs can be used to treat and cure chronic diseases and disabilities, such as Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, Alzheimer’s and other nervous system injuries/disorders. Despite all the good that can come from the use of ESCs, the destruction of potential life, the human embryo, is the basis for the controversy of further research and testing. This controversy has created numerous regulations and laws for and against research into stem cell in the United States alongside the debate if federal funds should be used to fund embryonic stem cell research. Stem cell research is a field of study that needs fewer federal regulations and oversight in order to improve the quality of life for all, and eventually lead to the key for immortality.
In 1981, embryonic stem cells were first discovered in mice by Martin Evans of Cardiff University. Evans was able to separate the embryonic cells from the mice embryos and establish several stem cell cultures that could differentiate into any kind of mouse cell (Coghlan). This research set the foundation for the applications of embryonic stem cells. Sixteen years after this incredible find, a sheep named Dolly was born. Although many would find the birth of a sheep to be pretty mundane, Dolly’s birth marked an important milestone in the use and research of stem cells; Dolly was the first ever cloned mammal. Scientists were able to create Dolly by fusing a sheep egg with the DNA of an udder cell and then implanted the hybrid into a surrogate mother. While this was a major breakthrough in cloning studies, the success of this experiment allowed researchers to theoretically apply the same concept to humans and speculate that “fusing human embryonic stem cells with adult cells from a particular person could be used to create genetically matched tissue[s] and organ[s]” (Coghlan). A year after Dolly, human embryonic stem cells were finally discovered. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin and John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University were the first to “isolate human embryonic stem cells and grow them in the lab” (Coghlan). For the next 20 years, their preliminary discovery and research has served as the basis for all stem cell research.
Like most new discoveries, ESC research was greeted with both praise and caution. The first major federal response came in 1995 with the passage of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, a rider on an approbation bill (Kearl). The amendment prohibits the use of federal funds for “creating, destroying, or knowingly injuring human embryos” and defines a human embryo as “any organism… that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells” (Kearl). Megan Kearl of the Embryo Project noted that this provision “only prohibited federal funding for experimentation using human embryos, not the experimentation itself.” When Gearhart and Thomson discovered the first human ESCs, he did so through private funding. Lawyers for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) argued that experimenting with privately funded human stem cells was legal and could be federally funded. This loophole though was restricted in 2001, when President George Bush implemented policy restricting funding for new stem cell research but allowed current stem cell lines to receive funding. This policy was reversed when President Obama signed Executive Order 13505 “Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells”. In the case Sherley v. Sebelius, the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit upheld the lower court’s opinion that President Obama’s executive order “reasonably interpreted Dickey–Wicker's ban on funding ‘research in which…embryos are destroyed’” thus, federally funded stem cell lines could continue, as long as the funds are not used to directly destroy a human embryo (Sherley v. Sebelius 610). The Dickey-Wicker Amendment was renewed in 2009 attached to the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, which remains the only legal challenge left for federally funded experimentation on human embryos (Kearl). Since the Dickey-Wicker Amendment only bans federal funding, states have the right to fund embryonic stem cells if they choose to do so. In 2003, New Jersey passed legislations that fund embryonic stem cell research, making it the first state in the United States to fund stem cell research (Young). Programs for stem cells research in New Jersey have remained untouched, making New Jersey one of seven states that currently funds ESC research (Young).
Naturally, the funding and regulation of ESC research has sparked national debate. On one hand, stem cells have the potential to treat and cure life-threatening diseases and disorders, but on the other hand, the destruction of a human embryo is the destruction of life. The research into stem cells involving the human embryo should remain untouched. There should be, fewer federal regulations involving further researching into stem cells in order to allow private organizations and individuals to develop artificial embryos that could have the potential to cure diseases and illnesses. Regulations on stem cells though should focus more on the distribution and sale of the treatment. The Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) reports that “some patients seeking cures and remedies are vulnerable to stem cell treatments that are illegal and potentially harmful” and will be increasing its oversight on said treatments (FDA Warns About Stem Cell Therapies). The hope is that the FDA will ensure that unapproved stem cell products are not sold to consumers. As noted by the FDA, this is an already known issue, and steps should be taken to prevent this from becoming a widespread issue. Today, stem cell companies promote their products to third-world countries where medical regulations are more lax, and people are more willing to participate in drug trials (Sipp). However, these are not finalized products, and could in fact have detrimental effects on humans. Steps should be taken in order to prevent this to becoming a reality in the United States. People who are most at risk of falling for such false pretenses are patients with severe illnesses and their family members, or lower-income individuals that would be easily swayed into testing a drug in exchange for a reward. While research should be less regulated, the sale and promotion of stem cells to the general public should have oversight to ensure lives will not be taken advantage of.
Federal funding should increase into the research of stem cell lines. Decreasing the amount of regulations will researchers more opportunities to develop new and more applications for ESCs. In 2010, a person from California was the first to receive medical treatment using embryonic cells for a spinal injury, and further studies in 2012 show the cells have been able to ease blindness (Coghlan). Furthermore, stem cells have shown promise in treating genetic disorders and diseases, such as Alzheimer's, diabetes, and recovering from a heart attack and stroke. Funding research in the stem cell lines that hold the key to prolonging the human life is essential. While most funding should rely on private and state funding, the federal government should use their power, in extent with the law, in order to improve the quality of life in America.
Funding into embryonic stem cell research should only be for current cell lines, not experimentation with the human embryo itself. There would be multiple legal challenges to overcome in order to provide federal dollars to research on the human embryo. Funding direct destruction of a human embryo would violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment and may also violate the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits funding for abortion. Both amendments have been ruled constitutional and providing federal funds to terminate a human embryo would cause a legal crisis. Instead, all federal funds should especially support current stem cell lines. Not only is it the most legal route, but it has already spawned new discoveries in stem cell research. In 2006, Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University in Japan discover a way of making “embryonic like cells from adult cells – avoiding the need to destroy an embryo” (Coghlan). Adult stem cells have the potential to treat and cure most, if not all, the disorders and diseases embryonic stem cells can. In 2014, skin cells were induced into embryonic-like stem cells, these cells are called induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPSCs. They were differentiated into insulin producing cells to treat diabetes (Coghlan). Funding the research into stem cells should be promoting the use of iPSCs instead of focusing so much on the use and development of ESCs. The current funding for ESC lines can be useful for medical treatment, but direct funding into the study of iPSCs should be the priority since iPSCs can do the same as ESCs and the way to retrieve them is more morally acceptable than ESCs. Both embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells both hold the potential in creating a longer-lasting future for all peoples.
The main argument against the research into embryonic stem cell research is that it is immoral. One perspective is that the destruction of a human embryo is the destruction of a potential life, thus, it is not ethical to support it. The other perspective looks at human embryos as nothing more than a limited number of cells who have yet to become a life. Supporting research into embryonic stem cells through the second perspective is morally permissible. The net benefit in the research into ESCs could allow millions of people to enjoy a better standard of living, since the medical treatment can help disorders and diseases that are currently non-treatable and non-curable. The destruction of one human embryo would not compare to the amount of lives being saved. Although the first perspective makes its basis on the idea that human embryo is considered a potential life, the artificially created embryo is not in a viable state, and most likely never will be. In fact, when a couple gets pregnant through the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF), all the other fertilized eggs that they may have stored in the clinic from that couple will get sent out as medical waste and destroyed. By using the artificial embryos made in IVF clinics and such, the use of ESCs could be justified, since in fact they were going to be destroyed anyways.
Another argument is that only iPSC research should be funded, not ESC research, since iPSCs do not destroy an embryo. While iPSCs do share similar qualities as ESCs, these induced cells are not as potent and do not yield the same results as embryonic cells, as of now. The differentiation of iPSCs into a different cell than it used to be is more difficult than embryonic cells since embryonic cells have yet to be exposed to chemicals that change their DNA while iPSCs have genetic changes that may not be fully reverted when they are turned from differentiated cells into undifferentiated cells (Hogan). Supporting research for embryonic stem cells will be beneficial for aiding the flaws in adult stem cells and allowing fewer regulations for private studies to refine medical treatment with the cells would have a lasting impact.
Although the last century has improved the quality of life around the world–diseases have been eradicated, new technologies have been created with the intention for assistance, and life expectancy has been rising–there are still many diseases and disorders that threaten the peace we have created. Stem cells are an opportunity to help us maintain that peace and maybe even prolong it. Since their discovery in 1981, stem cells have changed the way medicine works as well as helped many to live a better, pain-free life. While it is not a perfect science, the potential for success outweighs the risks. The support of embryonic stem cell research helped discover other alternatives. With further support and funding, imagine how much further we can go.