Demystifying Stem Cell Research

The Boston Globe recently reported about a stem cell clinic in the Ukraine which charges high sums for sketchy treatment. Giving patients false hope for successful treatment is reprehensible. Advocates of stem cell research have a responsibility to acknowledge that stem cell medicine is not available today. But even worse than providing false hope is to deny all hope that stem cell medicine may soon become a reality. This is the route on which America is currently embarked.

The problem with today’s stem cell debate is that both advocates and critics sometimes convey a perspective on the issue which may be alienated from its practical reality. At a time when critical policy decisions are made, the need is great to clearly communicate the science of stem cells and to test the controversy against reality. On close view, stem cell technology presents itself as a medical innovation which can be regulated given informed policy choices.

A range of medical afflictions result from the failure of specific kinds of cells to produce a needed chemical or from the death of cells themselves. Replacement with healthy cell tissue would be an ideal treatment. Stem cells, which have the ability to differentiate into many different types of cells, can be stimulated by researchers to develop into the specific tissue needed by the patient. Scientists hope that by using this approach, stem cell medicine will become a reality in the near future.

The most useful stem cells, those able to differentiate into any type of human cell, are derived from embryos which are five to six days into development. Stem cells derived from adult tissue may also offer potential for treatment, but—except for adult stem cells of the blood—our understanding of embryonic stem cells is much more developed. Embryonic stem cells have been studied for over twenty years, and offer the fastest route to scientific progress today.

In recent years embryonic stem cells have been derived from early embryos left over following in-vitro-fertilization (IVF) procedures. President Bush has restricted federal funding to research on cell lines which were derived prior to August 2001; in the President’s words, “where the life and death decision has already been made.” This decision turns a blind eye to the practical reality of IVF procedures, in which left over embryos are discarded every day as part of standard protocols. Thus, if the President is opposed to allowing ‘life and death’ decisions to be so made, he should close down IVF clinics. IVF has been an accepted medical practice since the 1970s, and has helped many couples conceive children. Similarly, it is a noble cause to use the embryo’s cells to help the severely ill, rather than simply discarding the embryo.

Stem cells from IVF, however, have a genetic make-up which is different from the genetic make-up of the patient in need of cell replacement. This creates the problem of immune rejection, whereby the patient’s immune defense attacks the transplanted “foreign” tissue.

It is possible to create a patient’s “own” tissue by a method known as nuclear transfer. The idea is to transfer the nucleus of one of the patient’s body cells to an egg cell from which the nucleus was removed, resulting in a so-called nuclear transfer embryo. Stem cells obtained from such an embryo are genetically identical to that of the patient. Regenerative tissue derived from these stem cells escapes immune rejection.

President Bush intends to ban nuclear transfer. If realized in a clinical phase, nuclear transfer will require a patient to donate one of his or her own body cells. Clinicians then mix this body cell in a test tube with an egg cell, and produce life-saving tissue. Patients receive transplantation without being dangerously immune-suppressed. When considered in its actual context, nuclear transfer is a simple and highly innovative medical technique. It is a technical process with no intention of creating a human being.

In theory, it would be possible to clone a person by implanting that person’s cloned embryo in a woman’s uterus. Numerous animal studies indicate, however, that it is unlikely to work in the sense of producing normal individuals. Aside from the scientific limitations, responsible policy choices can eliminate the possibility of reproductive cloning in practice. Given simple and strict legislation and oversight, the line between reproductive cloning and nuclear transfer is clear and enforceable. Just because someone might abuse a technology to do harm against all odds and in defiance of the law surely should not mean we should ban the technology all together.

Several countries, including the United Kingdom and Singapore, endorse nuclear transfer research, but strictly prohibit any attempts at reproductive cloning. This means that a ban on nuclear transfer in the United States may lead to a brain drain outside of U.S. academic and corporate laboratories. Nor is it inconceivable that new medical treatments become available abroad while the United States is under a ban.

American patients should not have to cross the globe for any hope of treatment and risk being exposed to counterfeit medicine. American researchers should not have to leave U.S. labs to conduct promising stem cell research abroad. By taking the scientific and moral initiative in stem cell research, U.S. society can act to prevent both. Regulated and clinically responsible research in U.S. labs will fill the research vacuum from which phony clinics benefit at present. The American people, and indeed the world, call on the U.S. government for a committed and realistic approach to one of the promising medical innovations of our time.

Thorold W. Theunissen ’07 is a biology concentrator in Winthrop House.