Ethics: November 2007 Archives

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 the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.

Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush's stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president -- so vilified for a moral stance -- been so thoroughly vindicated.

I also found this from Ryan T. Anderson for the Weekly Standard: The End of the Stem-Cell Wars.

I think both are premature - a laboratory breakthrough does not a changed industry make. If these new methods pan out - and I say "if" because we don't know how much testing is yet to be done before others can safely and confidently adopt it - it will take time before all the research labs change gears to the new methods. Until then, they'll all want to continue research as they are currently. From Drs Thompson and Yamanaka, the scientists who made the discovery in question:

He and Dr. Yamanaka caution, though, that they still must confirm that the reprogrammed human skin cells really are the same as stem cells they get from embryos. And while those studies are under way, Dr. Thomson and others say, it would be premature to abandon research with stem cells taken from human embryos.

In light of the fact that the researchers who achieved the breakthrough have yet to confirm that this is the holy grail that many seek, I urge caution. While this announcement may be a cause for hope, this is not yet the time for celebration.

- 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?