|
The death of Ronald Reagan has brought new heat to the
debate on stem cell research, fueled by the understandable desire of
Nancy Reagan to find a cure for Alzheimer’s disease. She believes
the answer lies in embryonic stem cell research, which has been
strictly limited by the Bush administration.
I tried to come up with one neat, tidy metaphor for the
hugely optimistic promises made by embryonic stem cell proponents,
but couldn’t decide between “snake oil” and “Soylent Green,” the
answer to world hunger offered by the 1973 movie of the same name.
If you aren’t into science fiction classics, let’s just say Soylent
Green was not only a food product but also solved the cemetery land
use problem.
Embryonic stem cells are extracted from human embryos, a
process that kills it. Unless also one strips the human embryo of
its humanity, cures from such cells are quite literally medicines
made from dead babies. Even if every exorbitant claim for embryonic
stem cell research comes true, many, including myself, find the
notion repugnant.
It is hard to find a medical condition for which stem
cells aren’t said to hold the cure, except maybe bad breath and
split ends. A quick Internet search turned up Alzheimer’s,
Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, cancer,
spinal cord injuries, diabetes, burns, and yes, thinning hair.
Claims once made from the backs of medicine wagons may have gone
high tech but it’s still largely about money. Billions are being
spent now; those dangling claims of miracles want billions more.
While stem cell research may eventually yield results,
the main product so far is hyperbole, furthered by what seems to be
an intentional effort to confuse the public about the different
types of stem cell research. After human stem cells were first
isolated in 1998, most news stories were careful to distinguish
between embryonic stem cells and those from human adults or animals,
a critical difference since federal restrictions apply almost
entirely to embryonic research. To read most reports today, one
would think all stem cell research has been limited.
In fact, as reported in a June 13, 2004 article in the
Philadelphia Inquirer, stem cell research is “flourishing at major
universities, medical centers, and biotechnology companies,” using
currently approved embryonic stem cell lines, adult stems cell, and
animal research.
While reportedly harder to harvest and work with, adult
stem cell research has its advantages. Adults are not harmed or
killed in the process, as are embryos. Further, if science can use
a person’s own cells for these miracle cures, the issue of tissue
rejection will have finally been solved.
Stem cell research is often not the best hope, even for
Alzheimer’s disease. A June 2004 article by Associated Press
science writer Malcolm Ritter quotes Dr. Marilyn Albert of Johns
Hopkins University, head of the Medical and Scientific Advisory
Council of the Alzheimer’s Association, as saying “I just think
everybody feels there are higher priorities (than stem cell
research) for seeking effective treatments for Alzheimer’s disease
and for identifying preventive strategies.” The article goes on to
list promising research into the buildup of “amyloid” protein clumps
in the brain, drug therapies, vitamin research, and a possible
vaccine.
I sympathize deeply with Mrs. Reagan. My mother died of
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease),
a horrible wasting illness on the long list of miracle cures said to
need only more embryonic stem cell research. She died shortly after
human stem cells were first isolated, and we never discussed the
issue. I cannot speak for her and dearly wish she were here to
speak for herself.
The characters in “Soylent Green” revolted after
discovering the true nature of the food that was keeping them
alive. My best guess is that Mom would have joined them.
|
