Francais | English | Espanõl

Stem cell controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

There exists a widespread controversy over stem cell research that emanates from the techniques used in the creation and usage of stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research is particularly controversial because, with the present state of technology, starting an embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning. Some opponents of the research also argue that this practice is a slippery slope to reproductive cloning and tantamount to the instrumentalization of a potential human being. Contrarily, medical researchers in the field argue that it is necessary to pursue embryonic stem cell research because the resultant technologies are expected to have significant medical potential, and that the embryos used for research are only those slated for destruction anyway. The ensuing debate has prompted authorities around the world to seek regulatory frameworks and highlighted the fact that stem cell research represents a social and ethical challenge.

Contents

[edit] Scientific background to stem cells

[edit] What is a stem cell?

Main article: Stem cell

Stem cells are cells that are able to differentiate into specialized cell types but also retain the ability to renew themselves through cell division.

Stem cells were first identified in embryos. In an embryonic blastocyst, stem cells of the inner cell mass proceed to develop into all of the tissues and organs of the body.

In adults, progenitor cells and possibly multipotent adult stem cells act as a repair system for the body, replenishing more specialized cells. The existence of truly pluripotent stem cells in adult humans beings is still scientifically controversial.

[edit] Stem cell therapies

Main article: Stem cell treatments

Since stems cells have the potential to be differentiated into virtually all cell types, they offer promise in the development of medical treatments for a wide range of conditions. These include damage to the brain, spinal cord, skeletal muscles, and the heart. Treatments have been proposed follow either physical trauma (e.g. spinal cord injuries), degenerative conditions (e.g. Parkinson's disease), or even genetic diseases (in combination with gene therapy).

Much success and potential have been demonstrated from research using adult stem cells. Nevertheless, some are of the opinion is that the differentiation potential of embryonic stem cells is broader than most adult stem cells. In addition, embryonic stem cells are considered useful for nervous system therapies because researchers have struggled to identify and isolate neural progenitors from adult tissues. However, embryonic stem cells might be rejected by the immune system, which is a problem which the patient's own stem cells would not cause.

[edit] Controversy of Embryonic stem cell research

The status of the human embryo and human embryonic stem cell research is a controversial issue as, with the present state of technology, the creation of a human embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo. Stem cell debates have motivated and reinvigorated the ‘pro-life’ movement whose members have concerned themselves with the rights and status of the embryo as an early-aged human life. They believe that embryonic stem cell research instrumentalizes and violates the sanctity of life and constitutes murder <ref name="Bush">"The stated reason for President Bush's objection to embryonic stem cell research is that 'murder is wrong'" (BBC)</ref>. The fundamental assertion of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research is the belief that human life is inviolable, combined with the opinion that human life begins when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell to form a single cell.

Most stem cell researchers use embryos that were created but not used in in vitro fertility treatments to derive new stem cell lines. Most of these embryos are slated to be destroyed, or stored indefinitely. In the United States alone, there are at least 400,000 such embryos.<ref name="Weiss2003">Weiss, Rick. (May 8, 2003) "400,000 Human Embryos Frozen in U.S.," Washington Post. Retrieved August 24, 2006.</ref> This has led some opponents of abortion, such as Senator Orrin Hatch, to support human embryonic stem cell research.<ref name="Connolly">Connolly, Ceci. (July 30, 2005) "Frist Breaks With Bush On Stem Cell Research." Washington Post. Retrieved August 24, 2006.</ref>

Medical researchers widely submit that stem cell research has the potential to dramatically alter approaches to understanding and treating diseases, and to alleviate suffering. In the future, most medical researchers anticipate being able to use technologies derived from stem cell research to treat a variety of diseases and impairments. Spinal cord injuries and Parkinson's disease are two examples that have been championed by high-profile media personalities (i.e. Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox). The anticipated medical benefits of stem cell research have added a certain amount of emotion and urgency to the debates, which has been exploited by proponents of embryonic stem cell research.

Recently, researchers at Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Mass., succeeded in obtaining stem cells from mouse embryos without killing them (see "[Lanza] technique", below). [1] If this technique and its reliability are improved, it would alleviate many of the ethical problems related to embryonic stem cell research.

[edit] Arguments for embryonic stem cell research

Proponents of embryonic stem cell research state these reasons:

(1) The utilitarianism argument

The benefits of stem cell research outweigh the cost in terms of embryonic "life"

  • Embryonic stem cells have the capacity to grow indefinitely in a laboratory environment and can differentiate into almost all types of bodily tissue. This makes embryonic stem cells an attractive prospect for cellular therapies to treat wide range of diseases.<ref name = "Spinneypress">Spinneypress.(2006) "Arguments For Stem cell Research," Stem Cell Research. Retrieved August 26, 2006.</ref>
  • The social, economic, and personal costs of the diseases that embryonic stem cells have the potential to treat, are far greater than the costs associated with the destruction of embryos.

(2) The human potential vs humanity argument

The value of an embryo should not be placed on par with the value of a child or adult

This argument often goes hand-in-hand with the utilitarian argument, and can be presented in several forms:

  • Embryos, while of value, are not equivalent to human life while they are still incapable of existing outside the womb (i.e. they only have the potential for life).
  • Approximately 18% of zygotes do not implant after conception.[2] Thus far more embryos are lost due to chance than are proposed to be used for embryonic stem cell research or treatments.
  • Blastocysts are a cluster of human cells that have not differentiated into distinct organ tissue, making cells of the inner cell mass no more "human" than a skin cell .<ref name = "Spinneypress">Spinneypress.(2006) "Arguments For Stem cell Research," Stem Cell Research. Retrieved August 26, 2006.</ref>

(3) The consequentialism argument

The ends (i.e. new treatments and cures) justify the means (i.e. the destruction of an embryos)

This can be seen as a more extreme view of the utilitarianism argument.

(4) The efficiency argument

If an embryo is going to be destroyed anyway, isn't it more efficient to make practical use of it?

  • In vitro fertilization (IVF) generates large numbers of unused embryos (i.e. 70,000 in Australia alone). Many of these thousands of IVF embryos are slated for destruction. Using them for scientific research utilizes a resource that would otherwise be wasted.<ref name = "Spinneypress">Spinneypress.(2006) "Arguments For Stem cell Research," Stem Cell Research. Retrieved August 26, 2006.</ref>
  • While the destruction of human embryos is required to establish a stem cell line, no new stem cells have to be destroyed to work with an existing stem cell lines. It would be wasteful not to continue to make use of these cell lines as a resource. <ref name = "Spinneypress">Spinneypress.(2006) "Arguments For Stem cell Research," Stem Cell Research. Retrieved August 26, 2006.</ref>.

(5) Arguments for the superiority of embryonic stem cells

Embryonic stem cells can be considered far more useful therapeutically than adult stem cells

This is usually presented as a counter-argument to using adult stem cells as an alternative that doesn't involve embryonic destruction.

  • Embryonic stems cells make up a significant proportion of a developing embryo, while adult stem cells exist as minor populations within a mature individual. Thus, embryonic stem cells are likely to be easier to isolate and grow ex vivo than adult stem cells. <ref name = "Spinneypress">Spinneypress.(2006) "Arguments For Stem cell Research," Stem Cell Research. Retrieved August 26, 2006.</ref>
  • Embryonic stem cells divide more rapidly than adult stem cells, potentially making it easier to generate large numbers of cells for therapeutic means. In contrast, adult stem cell might not divide fast enough to offer immediate treatment. <ref name = "Spinneypress">Spinneypress.(2006) "Arguments For Stem cell Research," Stem Cell Research. Retrieved August 26, 2006.</ref>
  • Embryonic stem cells have greater plasticity, allowing them to treat a wider range of diseases.<ref name = "Spinneypress">Spinneypress.(2006) "Arguments For Stem cell Research," Stem Cell Research. Retrieved August 26, 2006.</ref>
  • Adult stem cells from the patient's own body might not be effective in treatment of genetic disorders. Allogeneic embryonic stem cell transplantation (i.e. from a healthy donor) may be more practical in these cases than gene therapy of a patient's own cell.<ref name = "Spinneypress">Spinneypress.(2006) "Arguments For Stem cell Research," Stem Cell Research. Retrieved August 26, 2006.</ref>
  • DNA abnormalities found in adult stem cells that are caused by toxins and sunlight may make them poorly suited for treatment.<ref name = "Spinneypress">Spinneypress.(2006) "Arguments For Stem cell Research," Stem Cell Research. Retrieved August 26, 2006.</ref>.
  • Embryonic stem cells have been shown to be effective in treating heart damage in mice.<ref name = "Spinneypress">Spinneypress.(2006) "Arguments For Stem cell Research," Stem Cell Research. Retrieved August 26, 2006.</ref>

[edit] Arguments against embryonic stem cell research

(1) Embryos are lives

An embryo contains the potential to form a human, therefore it should be valued as highly as a human life.

Similar arguments are commonly voiced by the pro-life movement to condemn abortion. This opinion is often related to religious doctrine that proports that human life and/or soul start at conception. Based upon this value system, the subsequent argument against embryonic stem cell research is teleological, i.e. life (an embryo) is inherently valuable and cannot be involuntarily destroyed to save another life.

As an extension of this, it is argued that the tendency by some supporters of embryonic stem cell researchers to dismiss the ethical significance of embryo destruction may act to devalue human life. Moreover, it has been argued that "the line at which an embryo becomes a human life remains as arbitrary as ever" <ref name="Parry"/>.

(2) Exploring alternative therapeutic options

Embryonic stem cells should be abandoned in favour of alternatives, such as those involving adult stem cells.

  • Adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research would be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were into channeled embryonic stem cell research.<ref name"CARE">The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. "The "Political Science" of Stem Cells". Retrieved on July 16, 2006.</ref>
  • It is claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells. Such claims are disputed by supporters of embryonic stem cell research.<ref name="Prentice">Prentice, David. (October 17, 2005) "Live Patients & Dead Mice". Christiantiy Today. Retrieved on August 24, 2006.</ref>
  • Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.<ref name="Clarke">Clarke, Michael F. and Michael W. Becker. (July 2006). "Stem Cells: The Real Culprits in Cancer?" Scientific American. Retrieved on August 8, 2006.</ref> However, it should be acknowledged that scientists have studied adult stem cells for decades, but first isolated human embryonic stem cells only in 1998.<ref name = "embryonicstemcell">Anonymous (September 24, 2006) "Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells." National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved September 24, 2006.</ref>

(3) Scientific flaws in embryonic stem cell research

(4) Overstatement of research potential

Scientists have long promised spectacular results from embryonic stem cell research, and this has not yet occurred <ref name="Parry"/><Ref name=Nerensini>Nerensini, F. (2000) "And Man Descended from the Sheep: The Public Debate on Cloning in the Italian Press." Public Understanding of Science, vol. 9, pp.359-382.</Ref><ref name="nisbet et al">Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. & Kroepsch, A. (2003) "Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics." The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 36-70 DOI: 10.1177/1081180X02251047.</ref>

This argument is hotly debated on both sides. Those critical of embryonic stem cell research point to a current lack of practical treatments, while supporters argue that advances will come with more time and that breakthroughs cannot be predicted.

Conspicuously, some criticism has even come from researchers themselves. For example, in November 2004, Princeton University president and geneticist Shirley Tilghman said, "Some of the public pronouncements in the field of stem-cell research come close to overpromising at best and delusional fantasizing at worst."<ref name="Tilghman">Tilghman, Shirley M. (November 11, 2004) "Address to the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey," Retrieved August 22, 2006.</ref> Similarly, fertility expert and current president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Lord Winston has warned of a public backlash against stem cell research if it fails to deliver on some of the "hype" surrounding potential treatments.<ref name="winston">Amos, Jonathan. (September 5, 2005) "Winston warns of stem cell 'hype'." BBC News. Retrieved August 14, 2006.</ref>

[edit] Stem cells without embryonic destruction

Notably, a fundamental impediment to the widespread acceptance of embryonic stem cell research is the destruction of the embryo. Consequently, some stem cell researchers are working to develop techniques of isolating stem cells that are as potent as embryonic stem cells, but do not require the destruction of a human embryo.

Some believe that human somatic cells can be coaxed to "de-differentiate" and revert to an embryonic state. Researchers at Harvard University, led by Kevin Eggan, have attempted to transfer the nucleus of a somatic cell into an existing embryonic stem cell, thus creating a new stem cell line.<ref name="eggan">C.Cowan, J. Atienza, D. Melton and K. Eggan. (August 26, 2005) "Nuclear reprogramming of somatic cells after fusion with human embryonic stem cells." Science, 309:1369.</ref> Another study published in August 2006 also indicates that differentiated cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic-like state by introducing four specific factors<ref>Takahashi K and Yamanaka S. "Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic and Adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors". Cell 126: 663-676.</ref>.

[edit] Therapeutic Cloning

While initial research using embryonic stem cells was focused on using established embryonic stem cell lines, advances with cloning (specifically somatic cell nuclear transfer) led to the proposal that embryonic stem cells could be produced from adult cells. These cells could be then used therapeutically and would be genetically identical to the person from whom they were taken. These cells would not be rejected by the patient's immune system.

To date, there have been no successful reported attempts for therapeutic cloning in humans (i.e. deriving embryonic stem cells from somatic cells), however this procedure has been successfully reported in mice. Nevertheless, this has led to a number of concerns being raised about therapeutic cloning in addition to those typically associated with embryonic stem cell research:

[edit] Reproductive cloning

A number of individuals and organizations who are not opposed to human embryonic stem cell research have expressed concern and/or opposition to the reproductive cloning of humans. This is because both processes use the same first step: the creation of a clonal embryo, most likely via somatic cell nuclear transfer. In research cloning, this clonal embryo will be destroyed in order to attempt to derive a stem cell line. In attempted reproductive cloning, the embryo would be implanted in a woman’s uterus to create a cloned child.

Those who hold this concern often advocate for strong regulation of research cloning.<ref name="Regulation">Lori B. Andrews et al. (March 19, 2002)."Open Letter to US Senators on Human Cloning and Eugenic Engineering." Retrieved on August 7, 2006</ref>, or its prohibition.<ref name="reifkin">Jeremy Rifkin. (February 18, 2002). "Fusion Biopolitics." The Nation. Retrieved on August 7, 2006.</ref>

[edit] Sources of human eggs

A related concern is the appropriate sourcing of the eggs that are needed in the first stem of research cloning. Due to poor reported rates of somatic cell nuclear transfer in other animals, it is likely that successful research cloning will require a large number of human eggs, which can only be obtained from women. This is an invasive procedure that carries health risks, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, and even death.<ref name="egg">"'IVF Treatment killed my daughter.'" (June 30, 2005). BBC News. "UK woman killed by rare IVF risk." (April 13, 2005). BBC News. Retrieved August 7, 2006.</ref>

Those who hold this concern call for measures to protect the women who provide eggs, such as requiring a "firewall" between clinicians carrying out the egg retrievals and researchers using the eggs in their work. There are also concerns about the emergence of a market for eggs that would disproportionately lead economically vulnerable women to put themselves at risk. This concern has led to a sentiment that prohibitions on financial compensation to women who provide eggs for research should not be compensated beyond reimbursement of direct expenses. This position has been adopted by the United States National Academies<ref name="NA">Committee on Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. (April 26, 2005). "Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research." National Academies Press. Retrieved August 7, 2006.</ref> and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.<ref name="CIRM">California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. (August 2, 2006). "Final Compiled Proposed CIRM MES Regulations." Retrieved August 7, 2006.</ref>

[edit] Feasibility of cloning treatments

A final concern relates to the the feasibility of applying therapeutic cloning treatments. The large number of eggs and the skilled labor required may mean that any such therapies are likely to be impractical or extremely expensive. Prominent researcher advocates such as Alan Trounson ("[T]he so-called therapeutic cloning to my mind is a non-event... it’s just not realistic [as a source of cures].")<ref name="Trounson"> "Scientists seek simple remedies to cloning conundrums". (May 2005). Nature Medicine. p. 459. </ref> and Thomas Okarma ("[T]he process is a nonstarter, commercially.") <ref name="Okarma">Denise Gellene. (May 10, 2002). "Clone Profit? Unlikely: The Technology’s Commercial Viability Faces Many Hurdles." Los Angeles Times.</ref> have asserted that such therapies are not practical.

[edit] Patents covering human stem cell research

The patents covering much work on human embryonic stem cells are owned by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF). WARF does not charge academics to study human stem cells but does charge commercial users. WARF sold Geron Corp. exclusive rights to work on human stem cells but later sued Geron Corp. to recover some of the previously sold rights. The two sides agreed that Geron Corp. would keep the rights to only three cell types. In 2001 WARF came under public pressure to widen access to human stem-cell technology.<ref name = "stemcellPatent">Regalado, Antonio, David P. Hamilton (July 2006). "How a University's Patents May Limit Stem-Cell Researcher." Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on July 24, 2006.</ref>

These patents are now in doubt as a request for their review by the US Patent and Trademark Office has been filed by non-profit patent-watchdogs The Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights and the Public Patent Foundation as well as molecular biologist Jeanne Loring of the Burnham Institute. They contend that two of the patents granted to WARF are invalid because they cover a technique published in 1992 for which a patent had already been granted to an Australian researcher. Another part of the challenge states that these techniques, developed by James A. Thomson, are rendered obvious by a 1990 paper and two textbooks.

The outcome of this legal challenge is particularly relevant to the Geron Corp. as it can only license patents that are upheld.<ref name="Kintisch">Kintisch, Eli (July 18, 2006) "Groups Target Stem Cell Patents." ScienceNOW Daily News. Retrieved August 15, 2006.</ref><ref name="AP Patents">Associated Press. (July 19, 2006) "Stem Cell Patents Come Under Fire." Retrieved August 15, 2006.</ref>

[edit] International policy context

Embryonic stem cell research has divided the international community. In the European Union, stem cell research using the human embryo is permitted in Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Greece, Britain, Denmark, and the Netherlands; however it is illegal in Germany, Austria, Ireland, Italy, and Portugal. The issue has similarly divided the United States, with several states enforcing a complete ban and others giving financial support - see below. The Confucian-influenced countries in East Asia—China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan—all have supportive policies toward stem cell research. India still has no policies covering stem cell research but is currently formulating them. The Middle East is largely restrictive with the exception of Israel and Iran. Australia is partially supportive (exempting reproductive cloning yet allowing research on embryonic stem cells that are derived from the process of IVF); however New Zealand, most of Africa (excepting South Africa) and most of South America (excepting Brazil) are restrictive.

[edit] US policy debate

[edit] Origins of policy debate in the U.S.

In 1969, the first human in vitro fertilization was accomplished and in 1973, Roe v Wade legalized abortion nationwide. These developments prompted the federal government to create regulations barring the use of federal funds for research that experimented on human embryos. In 1995, the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel advised the Clinton administration to permit federal funding for research on embryos left over from in vitro fertility treatments and also recommended federal funding of research on embryos specifically created for experimentation. In response to the panel's recommendations, the Clinton administration, citing moral and ethical concerns, declined to fund research on embryos created solely for research purposes,<ref name = "stemcellclinton"> "President Clinton's Comments on NIH and Human Embryo Research". U.S. National Archives. Retrieved on July 19, 2006. </ref> but did agree to fund research on left-over embryos created by in vitro fertility treatments. At this point, the Congress intervened and passed the Dickey Amendment in 1995 (the final bill, which included the Dickey Amendment, was signed into law by Clinton) which prohibited all federal funding for research that resulted in the destruction of an embryo regardless of the source of that embryo. The Dickey Amendment remains the law to this day.

In 1998, privately funded research led to the breakthrough discovery of hESC (Human Embryonic Stem Cells). This prompted the Clinton Administration to re-examine guidelines for federal funding of embryonic research. In 1999, the president's National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended that hESC harvested from embryos discarded after in vitro fertility treatments, but not from embryos created expressly for experimentation be eligible for federal funding[3]. Even though embryos are always destroyed in the process of harvesting hESC, the Clinton Administration decided that it would be permissible under the Dickey Amendment to fund hESC research as long as such research did not itself directly cause the destruction of an embryo. Therefore, HHS issued its proposed regulation concerning hESC funding in 2001. Enactment of the new guidelines was delayed by the incoming Bush administration which decided to reconsider the issue.

President Bush announced, on August 9, 2001 that federal funds, for the first time, would be made available for hESC research on currently existing stem cell lines; however, the Bush administration chose not to permit research on hESC cell lines not currently in existence, thus limiting federal funding to research in which "the life-and-death decision has already been made"<ref>The White House, Press Release, August 9, 2001</ref>. The Bush Administration's guidelines differ from the Clinton Administration guidelines which did not distinguish between currently existing and not-yet-existing hESC. Both the Bush and Clinton guidelines agree that the federal government should not fund hESC research that directly destroys embryos.

Neither Congress nor any administration has ever prohibited private funding of embryonic research. Also, public and private funding of adult stem cell research has no restriction whatsoever.

[edit] Congressional response

In April 2004, 206 members of Congress signed a letter urging President Bush to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research beyond what Bush had already supported.

In May 2005, the House of Representatives voted 238-194 to loosen the limitations on federally funded embryonic stem-cell research — by allowing government-funded research on surplus frozen embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics to be used for stem cell research with the permission of donors — despite Bush's promise to veto the bill if passed. [4] On July 29, 2005, Senate Majority Leader William H. Frist (R-TN), announced that he too favored loosening restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.<ref name = "stemcell14"> Connolly, Ceci (July 2005). ""Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds"". Washington Post: A01. Retrieved on July 21, 2006. </ref> On July 18, 2006, the Senate passed three different bills concerning stem cell research. The Senate passed the first bill (Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act), 63-37, which would have made it legal for the Federal government to spend Federal money on embryonic stem cell research that uses embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. <ref name = "stemcell3"> Kellman, Laurie. "Senate Approves Embryo Stem Cell Bill". Associated Press. Retrieved on July 18, 2006. </ref> On July 19, 2006 President Bush vetoed this bill. The second bill makes it illegal to create, grow, and abort fetuses for research purposes. The third bill would encourage research that would isolate pluripotent, i.e., embryonic-like, stem cells without the destruction of human embryos.

[edit] Current State of Federal Funding for hESC Research in the USA

Currently, the National Institutes of Health has 399 funding opportunities for researchers interested in hESC [5]. In 2005 the NIH funded $607 million worth of stem cell research, of which $39 million was specifically used for hESC [6]. Of the 514 currently recruiting clinical trials that are using stem cells as treatment, the federal government is supporting 206 of them; however, none of these trials are using hESC [7].

[edit] Polls regarding embryonic stem cell research

Surveys show majorities of the American public supports stem cell research and would back federal funding for it. For example, somewhat more than half (56%) favored federal funding in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in August 2005.[8] Many people, however, admit to pollsters that they don’t follow the issue closely. Surveys on stem cell research often have “don’t know” responses in the double digits, which often indicate that public attitudes are unsettled and open to change, according to the research group Public Agenda.[9] This is particularly important in surveys on stem cells, where those who are most attentive also tend to be the most supportive.[10]

A systematic review [11] of available polling data by American University Professor Matthew Nisbet [12]finds that in the neutrally worded survey questions sponsored by news organizations and non-partisan survey firms, public support for embryonic stem cell research rests at slight majority levels, ranging between 50% and 60% support. However, support drops when asking about sources of stem cells that do not involve so-called leftover embryos, including embryos created for research purposes or cloned embryos. Public opinion is also strongly susceptible to question wording effects, with many polls showing the greatest support for stem cell research including language that references the possibility of cures for a range of diseases. Since 2001, support for embryonic stem cell research has increased at the national level, but polls show that most of this increase in support has come from Democrats and independents. Following the 2004 Presidential election, polls in late 2004 and 2005 showed for the first time a significant gap between Democrats and Republicans in how they viewed embryonic stem cell research. [13] Other studies find that ideology and religious identity serve as powerful perceptual screens on how Americans make sense of the competing messages about stem cell research. [14]

Republican voters are divided on embryonic stem cell research, according to a survey of 800 conducted by pollster David Winston, who also conducts surveys for the Republican leadership in the House and Senate. 25% of Republicans said they wanted no government funding of the research, 33% favored the limited funding Bush offers, and 36% wanted expanded funding to cover research on leftover embryos at fertility clinics. The Winston poll was sponsored by a group of centrist Republicans, The Republican Main Street Partnership.[15][16][17]

A June 2004 poll conducted by Opinion Research Corp. on behalf of the Civil Society Institute found that three-quarters of 1,017 adults respondents--including 6 in 10 conservatives--supported former First Lady Nancy Reagan's call for fewer restrictions on the research.↑  [18]Overall support of non-embryonic stem cell research by Christians was found to be 73% in a 2004 Harris Interactive poll. Even a majority of people describing themselves as "very religious" were found to support it. [19]

The stem cell debate often draws upon public attitudes about abortion and cloning. Surveys show the public strongly rejects reproductive cloning to create children but is skeptical towards cloning for research.[20] The results of cloning surveys are very dependent on question wording. A 2005 poll by the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University found that 76 percent of Americans surveyed did not approve of "scientists working on ways to create a cloned human embryo for research." <ref name="GPPC">Gail H. Javitt, Kristen Suthers, Kathy Hudson. (April 2005) "Cloning: A Policy Analysis." Genetics and Public Policy Center. Retrieved September 25, 2006.</ref> Cloning was supported by 59% of respondents in a July 2005 poll conducted by Research America, a non-profit organization composed of universities, patient groups and biotech and pharmaceutical companies.[21]

[edit] Emerging U.S. state-by-state approach

California voters in November 2004 approved Proposition 71, creating a US$3 billion state taxpayer-funded institute for stem cell research, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. It hopes to provide $300 million a year. However, as of June 6, 2006, there were delays in the implementation of the California program and it is believed that the delays will continue for the significant future. [22] On July 21, 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) authorized $150 million in loans to the Institute in an attempt to jump start the process of funding research.<ref>Gledhill, Lynda. "Governor OKs stem cell research funds Schwarzenegger authorizes loans for $150 million", San Francisco Chronicle, 2006-07-21, pp. B-1. Retrieved on 2006-07-29. </ref>

Several states, in what was initially believed to be a national migration of biotech researchers to California [23], have shown interest in providing their own funding support of embryonic and adult stem cell research. These states include Connecticut [24], Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts [25], Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas [26][27], Washington, and Wisconsin. New Jersey has since become the second state in the nation to create a state-supported stem cell research institute. [28] Other states have, or have shown interest in, additional restrictions or even complete bans on embryonic stem cell research. These states include Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Virginia. (States play catch-up on stem cells, USA Today, December 2004) Seeking to alleviate fears of such a ban, Missouri recently constitutionally banned the banning of stem cell research in Missouri Amendment Two

[edit] UK policy

Since the discovery of hESC in 1998, many nations have revisited their legislation regarding the permissible use of embryos in biomedical research. In 2001, the United Kingdom amended the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act to permit the destruction of embryos for hESC harvests but only if the research satisfies one of the following requirements:

  1. Increases knowledge about the development of embryos,
  2. Increases knowledge about serious disease, or
  3. Enables any such knowledge to be applied in developing treatments for serious disease [29].

The United Kingdom is one of the leaders in stem cell research--in the opinion of former Lord Sainsbury, Science and Innovation Minister for the UK. [30]. A new £10 million stem cell research centre has been announced at the University of Cambridge. [31]

[edit] China policy

China has one of the most unrestrictive embryonic stem cell research policies in the world. In recent years, seeing the research opportunities that China's lax regulations provide, many expatriate Chinese scientists from the West are returning to China to establish stem cell research centers and laboratories there.[32]

As a result of the increased interest in this field of research, in 2003, the People's Republic of China Ministry of Science and Technology (MST) and Ministry of Health issued official ethical guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research in its territories. The guidelines strictly forbid any research aimed at human reproductive cloning and require that the embryos used for stem cell research come only from one of the following:

  1. Spared blastocyst after in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures;
  2. Fetal cells from accidental spontaneous or voluntarily selected abortions;
  3. Blastocyst or parthenogenetic split blastocyst obtained by somatic cell nuclear transfer technology; or
  4. Germ cells voluntarily donated to research. [33]

American scientific journals Science and Nature have both reported in recent years that China's stem cell programs hold potential, and in 2004 a delegation from Britain's Department of Trade and Industry concluded more emphatically that Chinese research in the field was already world-class.[34] Funding for stem cell research by the Chinese government though is extremely limited compared to Western nations. China's MST plans to devote between ¥260 million to ¥1 billion (US$33 million and US$132 million) on stem cell research in the next 5 years, depending on scientific progress. By contrast, the state of California alone has earmarked US$3 billion to fund stem cell research at California institutions during the next decade. However, China enjoys significant cost advantage compared to the West, particularly in sophisticated sectors such as medical research.

[edit] Chinese cultural views

Perhaps more importantly, the cultural and national attitude on stem cell research differs greatly between China and the West. Most Chinese citizens do not view the embryo as containing inherent moral value.[35] According to the accepted Confucian view, a person begins with birth; a person is an entity that has a body or shape and psyche, and has rational, emotional and social-relational capacity through a lifetime of experience, learning and innovation. Therefore to most Chinese, a human embryo, lacking the characteristics of a person, cannot be equated morally to a person or a personal life.[36] Stem cell research in China is thus unlikely ever to be prone to the intense moral politicking that characterizes the field in the West. In the opinion of Fiona Murray and Debora Spar, China's distinctive attitude toward the embryo, combined with its lax regulatory system, could help its researchers leap the gap between laboratory science and medical application in stem cell therapy developments.[37]

[edit] Ethical debate in China

Nevertheless, the ethical debate over the use of embryonic stem cells still abound within the Chinese bioethics and biomedical communities. A well-known and senior Chinese bioethicist, Dr. Qiu Renzong, made arguments in favor of therapeutic stem cell research based upon the position of the embryo's moral status in Confucian philosophy (mentioned above), arguing that an embryo does not share moral equivalency with living people in Chinese culture. However, he also noted that a human embryo is still a human biological life and deserves due respect. If there is no sufficient reason, he stressed, it won't be permissive to manipulate or destroy it. Dr. Wang Yanguang of the Centre for Bioethics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing similarly proposed that "For the reason of respect for the dignity of embryo, if there are alternative sources to derive totipotent stem cells other than from human embryo, such as the use of aborted fetal germ cells, we have no reason to use human embryos. Furthermore, if we can make adult stem cells totipotent, we have no reason to use an aborted fetus either." The director of the Medical Ethics Committee of the Chinese Society of Genetics, Dr. Liang Fuji, further warned that "when we are not able to respond to biomedical selection, we are not able to respond to the social and moral difficulties connected with bioengineering in any responsible way. If we do something we do not really understand, it is dangerous to mankind in the far long future." The view of Peng Ruicong, the director of the Ethics Committee in the national Ministry of Health, was that if there is no way to prove sufficiently either claim right or wrong on an ethical basis, then time will tell more about the validity of these moral claims and the real actions taken. [38]

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Ethics

[edit] World policy

[edit] News

[edit] References

<references/>

  • Nisbet, M.C. (2004). The Polls: Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68 (1), 132-155 [40]
  • Nisbet, M.C. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 1, 90-112 [41]
  • Arguments for Embryonic Stem Cell Research. [42]
  • Stem Cell Research, Volume 178, Issues in Society, [43]ca:Controvèrsia amb les cèl·lules mare
Retrieved from "http://en.wikivisual.com/index.php/Stem_cell_controversy"
Personal tools