The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) is looking for talented poets with an interest in stem cells to submit an original poem in honor of the second annual Stem Cell Awareness Day.
Authors of the best poems will each receive a framed stem cell image and could see their work published on the CIRM website and in the agency’s annual report.
Poems of up to 250 words related to stem cell science can be emailed to stemcellday@cirm.ca.gov before Sept. 14.
Stem cell research has presented the nation with one of the most divisive ethical issues of the modern age. Aside from the biological implications of stem cell research, many question the morality of issues involving embryos, cloning, and genetic engineering, to identify a few.
While the debate is relatively new, it is rapidly becoming one of the most controversial ethical issues of today. As with most technological advances, the key question is not whether progress is right or wrong, but rather will society use the new power responsibly.
To provide some scientific background on the issue, a stem cell is a cell that has the potential to develop into a number of different types of cells in the body. First discovered in the early 1900s, stem cells were identified and named when researchers realized that various types of blood cells all originated from a particular “stem cell” (UKSCF, 2007).
When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain the same or become another type of cell in the body with a more specialized function, such as a brain cell, red blood cell, or muscle cell (U.S. Dept. of Health, 2009). For this reason, stem cells are expected to be able to effectively treat a wide variety of diseases and ailments, including spinal cord injury, diabetes, heart disease, blood disorders, and Parkinson’s Disease.
Another potential function of stem cells is the ability to create cells, tissue, and even synthetic blood that can be used in medical therapies (AGI News, 2009), thus closing the gap between the high demand for donated organs and tissues and the limited supply currently available for patients in need.
There are two types of stem cells with which scientists can work: adult and embryonic.
Most of the controversy surrounding stem cell research involves embryonic stem cells because they are derived from fertilized embryos, which are subsequently destroyed in the research process.
The embryos used for research, however, are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman’s body; rather they are fertilized in vitro in a fertilization clinic and donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donor (Newman, 2009). If they are not used to contribute to the medical community, these embryos will be kept deep frozen in a clinic or discarded altogether. It is for this reason that many supporters of stem cell research argue that the process cannot be accurately compared to destroying human life if the embryo’s ultimate fate was going to be disposal from the onset of the procedure. It is also not clear as to whether or not the biological fetus is a person and has rights (Garrett, Baille, & Garrett, 2001).
An adult (or somatic) stem cell, on the other hand, is an undifferentiated cell found among differentiated cells in an organ or tissue that has the ability to renew itself, as well as differentiate into a specialized cell type. By their nature, adult stem cells are not as controversial because they can be derived from an individual who may require the therapy by extracting them from the bone marrow or skin cells (National Institues of Health, 2009).
Stem cells, however, do not come only from embryos, bone marrow, and skin. A popular service called cord blood banking is now offered to the families of newborn infants who want to preserve a child’s stem cells after birth so that they may be accessed later should stem cell therapy ever become necessary. The cells derived from the baby’s umbilical cord can also be used to treat blood relatives. If a family decides not to store these cells by having them frozen after birth, then the genetically unique cord blood stem cells are discarded (Cord Blood Registry, 2009).
Perhaps on its basis in science and progress as well as ethics and morality, stem cell research has proven to be a highly charged political topic. On August 9, 2001, former president George W. Bush signed an executive order declaring that federal funding for stem cell research could only be used for existing stem cell lines created before that day. Of the 60 embryonic stem cell lines authorized for research at the time, only 21 proved to be useful for researchers (CNN, 2009).
Although Bush’s executive order did not prohibit privately funded stem cell research, scientists and advocates claim that the loss of federal support was a crippling blow to research endeavors in the United States, although other countries continued to make progress in the field (Block, 2009).
Nearly eight years later, the stem cell debate was re-ignited when President Barack Obama overturned Bush’s executive order by signing one of his own on March 9, 2009 that permitted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research once more (Newman, 2009). Obama vowed to “restore science to its rightful place” during his presidency. The scientific community considered this act to be a crucial step in making strides in stem cell research.
Another crucial step was made by Geron Corporation about a month before Obama’s executive order; the company, a developer of therapeutic products for the treatment of cancer and chronic degenerative diseases, was granted clearance by the FDA to conduct the world’s first clinical study of a human embryonic stem cell based therapy in man on January 23, 2009 (Geron, 2009).
Another company, Osiris Therapeutics, has received FDA fast-track clearance for the use of Prochymal, an “intravenously administered formulation of mesenchymal stem cells” (Osiris, 2009). Prochymal is currently in both Phase II and Phase III clinical trials, including research on post- heart attack repair, protection of lung tissue against obstructive pulmonary disease, and the preservation of pancreatic islet cells in people with type 1 diabetes. Osiris is also researching the use of another cocktail of mesenchymal stem cells, called Chondrogen, to be injected into a patient to treat arthritis of the knee (Osiris, 2009).
Since then, Obama has been denounced by prominent religious leaders, government officials, and other opponents of embryonic stem cell research while simultaneously being praised by scientists, investors, advocates, and potential patients. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research believe that the destruction of a fertilized embryo for research purposes is immoral, whereas supporters believe that discarding an embryo that will never mature to become a living being is a morally unsound act when the embryo in question could provide stem cells that could subsequently be used to help save millions of lives in the future.
While the issue of stem cell research is decidedly polarized, it is not without its gray areas. Some opponents of embryonic stem cell research support adult stem cell research whereas others are avidly against both. Even some of the strongest supporters of both adult and embryonic stem cell research have concerns about the effect it could have if the technology is abused. Despite the benefits discussed above, there is still a possibility that the technology can be abused to clone more than just organs, and that preventative treatments may evolve into creating so-called “designer babies” by manipulating genetics. There is also the prospect of women becoming pregnant for the sole purpose of selling their embryos once stem cell treatments become commercialized and marketable. At the same time, completely separate groups of supporters have more personal concerns and agendas, such as being given the opportunity to save a dying relative.
Simply stated, some people may view the process of stem cell research as destructive and immoral while others may see it as one of the greatest advancements in scientific history. Although neither side of the ethical debate can be identified as right or wrong because morals are grounded in personal beliefs and perspectives, it is important to take into consideration the limitations that exist with current medical practices and the ways in which stem cell research could raise medical technology to the next plateau.
It is natural for humans to be fearful of the unknown, and the status quo is not often changed without a fight. Consider Galileo Galilei, who is now dubbed the “father of science.” He was condemned to house arrest for the remainder of his life because his controversial views on planetary orbits did not coincide with those of the Catholic Church (McMullin, 2005). Without his discovery and willingness to go against the grain, however, it’s possible that astronomers may still believe that all heavenly bodies revolve around the earth.
As for the argument that stem cell research can be abused for monetary gain or vanity, one must remember the adage that with great power comes great responsibility. The ability to create fire, for example was one of the most important discoveries in our evolution as a species because of its multiple uses that aided in survival: seeing in the dark, staying warm in freezing environments, and cooking meals to prevent illness. This important tool, however, was often abused and used to destroy villages or burn people at the stake. Does this mean humans would have been better off without it based on its potential to be used as an unethical tool of destruction? It is a generally accepted reality that making progress coincides with taking risks.
A similar argument can be made for the Internet. Some will proclaim that the Internet brought the world together by allowing instant communication from anywhere on Earth, and also provided a portal to unlimited information that otherwise would not be readily available, for example, this document.
Conversely, others will say that the Internet provides a safe haven for predators and creates opportunity for criminal enterprises. Both arguments would be correct, but neither point of view can effectively make a case for the Internet’s morality. This is because technology does not have a moral compass, and it is only as good or evil as the person — or society — wielding it.
This debate is not about whether stem cell research is ethical or not. Rather, it is about whether or not we can trust ourselves as a society to handle its vast potential in an appropriate way. Humans are historically fallible, but human imperfections should not lead society to dismiss innovation. Instead, we must evolve as a species in order to adapt to our own advancements while working together to protect ourselves from ourselves, while paradoxically attempting to save ourselves from diseases and other ailments.
Stem cell research will most likely not be fully embraced by all parts of society any time soon, though the solution may be to take small steps in this direction; in other words, perhaps the best solution is to begin research solely on adult stem cells, and then determine the need to introduce embryonic stem cells into research later after further study. Then again, how will we ever master the potential of embryonic stem cells in a safe, ethical way unless we research them?
By Tyler Lanza
On August 19, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which seeks to “enjoin and overturn” the controversial guidelines for public funding of embryonic stem cell research issued by the National Institutes of Health on July 7, 2009.
According to the plaintiffs, the NIH Guidelines released on July 7, 2009 "authorize public funding of research that depends upon and, indeed, requires the destruction of living human embryos." The complaint contends that such research violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which prohibited the use of federal monies to fund research in which embryos are destroyed or knowingly subjected to harm in 1995.
According to ChristianNewsWire, the suit is brought by a broad coalition of plaintiffs, including Dr. James L. Sherley, a former member of the MIT faculty, currently working as a senior scientist at the Boston Biomedical Research Institute; Dr. Theresa Deisher, the founder, managing member, and research and development director of AVM Biotechnology; Nightlight Christian Adoptions, a non-profit, licensed adoption agency dedicated to protecting and finding adoptive parents for human embryos conceived through in vitro fertilization; all individual human embryos whose lives are now at risk under NIH's guidelines; parents seeking to adopt human embryos; and the Christian Medical Association, a non-profit association of doctors dedicated to improving ethical standards of health care in the United States and abroad.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending religious freedom and the sanctity of human life, is also serving as co-counsel on the case and providing financial support.
The Defendants are Kathleen Sebe-lius, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, Dr. Francis S. Collins, in his official capacity as Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the NIH.
A copy of the complaint can be obtained by clicking here.
Stem-cell research may hold the key to cardiac regeneration by replacing many of the dead cardiomyocytes with functional cells and even prevent scar formation.
Most stem cell research targeted at the heart uses adult stem cells, which are injected directly into the heart muscle. There are less-invasive techniques being tried though, like injecting stem cells from the bone marrow into the skeletal muscles of limbs.
According to Dr. Douglas Losordo, a cardiologist at the Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, it is conceivable that this treatment could be widely used in a little over four years.
Here is a list of public and private companies developing stem cell therapies for the heart:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates which adult stem cell techniques are allowed to go into clinical trials and sets the requirements for more routine use.
"Whether the FDA will become more or less lenient in these respects is unclear," said Techung Lee, associate professor of biochemistry at the State University New York at Buffalo.
8.12.09
This video originally aired April 1, 2008 on the Barbara Walters-hosted program: “Live to 150, Can you Do It? Secrets to Living Longer”
In a recent Newsweek article touting “embryonic stem cells are still regarded as the gold standard”, we learn more about Geron Corporation’s plans to conduct a spinal-cord-injury trial - the first trial ever for embryonic stem cells in the U.S.
To be held in California, the trial will recruit patients within one to two weeks of their injuries, before scar tissue has formed. Doctors will inject a derivative of stem cells, called progenitor cells, that manufacture myelin, the substance that coats the long, spindly projections on nerve cells, much the same way that insulation coats electrical wires.
Damage to cells that make and maintain the myelin sheath, as happens in spinal-cord injuries, prevents nerves from conveying messages from the brain. Although it's not clear yet whether the treatment is effective or safe, the restoration of even partial function would be a huge advance.
According to the article, Geron's CEO, Dr. Thomas Okarma, thinks that spinal injury is a logical place to begin. Because patients will be completely paralyzed from the waist down, any improvement will be the result of the therapy, not chance. And the spinal cord is an "immune-privileged site," meaning that the attack cells of the immune system cannot get in and destroy the embryo-derived cells. "If the therapy is safe and effective, the potential impact will extend way beyond spinal-cord injury," says Okarma. "It will mark the start of a new era in medical therapeutics."
Al Gore, now a partner in the venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, has thrown his weight behind the research.
Geron’s success could give a bump to other stem cell companies working with embryonic stem cells, like Advanced Cell Technology (ACTC), which is scheduled to file an IND with the FDA to begin human clinical trials sometime “in the next 3 or 4 months.” (ADVANCED CELL TECHNOLOGY AND COLLABORATORS AT THE CASEY EYE INSTITUTE PRESENT PROMISING DATA SUPPORTING SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF STEM CELL THERAPY TO COMBAT RETINAL DISEASE)
Newsweek claims other companies aren't waiting for the results. The U.S. pharmaceutical giant Pfizer is pursuing two other embryonic-stem-cell-based therapies, which it hopes to have in clinical trials by 2011. In April the company partnered with University College London to pursue a therapy for macular degeneration, the principal cause of blindness in the elderly.
However, some doctors have criticized Geron’s plans as risky and clinically dubious because the entire rationale for the study is "based on a single experiment in eight rats." (Geron Stem Cell Trial Risky, Doctors Warn)
