A Double Conumdrum
- contained in this story from yesterday: Stem-cell advance opens up the field:
...These are some of the effects analysts say they see coming out of this week's announcements that two teams have genetically reprogrammed skin cells so that they take on the traits of embryonic stem cells.Embryonic stem cells are the subject of intense medical interest because of their ability to develop into any of the major cell types in the human body. Over the long term, these stem cells could become the foundation for therapies for a range of diseases, scientists say. This week's announcement suggests it will be possible for scientists to study these cells without the ethical and political difficulties of harvesting them from unused human embryos.
This makes things difficult for both sides of the stem cell debate.
As to the proponents of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) - if this makes research possible without using embryos, will they embrace this news as proof that there's other ways to get the job done and abandon embryonic stem cells? Although they should, it will be hard to abandon the massive investment they've made. I predict they won't, and if the promise of the news from this week pans out and it turns out the same research can be done with skin cells, it will make them look ghoulish for clinging to the embryonic route.
But what about the anti- embryonic stem cell folks? One of the widely spread claims of the anti-ESCR crowd is that the embryonic cells are dangerous, yielding treatments that give cancer and worse as side-effects - if the reprogrammed skin cells are identical to their embryonic cousins, shouldn't they be opposed for safety's sake alone?
1 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A Double Conumdrum.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.dontgointothelight.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5275
In today's Washington Post, in reference to the recent stem cell advance: A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan's Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since... Read More
I don't know that it necessarily follows that we should oppose the new methods of research given the risk of cancer. While cancer is a risk either with embryonic stem cells or this new method, the lack of moral issues with the derivation of the stem cells in the new method make them permissible means of research.
While the risk of cancer may make them unfeeasible in certain situations, there may be situations where the risk of cancer is "worth it." For example, perhaps the person would die soon with the cure, while cancer is merely a long-term risk.
The primary issue in the debate over embryonic stem cells has always been the immorality involved with the research due to the destruction of human life required. The increased likelihood of cancer was always an ancillary additional issue.
Ancillary or no, the dangerous nature of any potential treatment is an ever-present feature in the advertisements of the groups opposing ESCR. While I sympathize with the ethical and moral concerns of these groups, the inclusion of ancillary issues into their argument may prove to be a tactical error haunting them if the landscape changes to remove the primary argument while leaving said ancillary issues in place.
Time will tell if they've painted themselves into a corner.