Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

MINOVICH: We must continue to back stem-cell research

By Tori Minovich

Published December 10, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

Over the past 100 years, scientific exploration from DNA to cancer research has exploded. On top of creating new medications that cure diseases like influenza and strep throat, scientists discovered an amazing type of cell that has the ability to transform itself into practically any type of tissue in the human body. For the first time in history, it became possible for physicians to re-create a damaged tissue with a new supply of healthy cells by drawing on the unique ability of stem cells.

More and more, the term “stem cells” has been heard from the scientific realm and these two words have caused some of the biggest controversy in our government today. Ultimately, scientists have been uncovering the mystery of exactly how these specialized cells can be used for medical advancements beyond anything ever accomplished before. Two types have been discovered so far: embryonic and adult stem cells. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Embryonic stem cells are flexible and immortal, meaning they may become any type of tissue and potentially provide an endless supply of cells but are quite difficult to differentiate into the target tissue and harvest. On the other hand, adult stem cells are just as flexible as the embryonic type and are easier to harvest, but they can be extremely difficult to target a certain tissue and they do not live as long.

The controversy emanates when scientists use embryonic stem cells to culture and test on subjects because embryonic cells to some are considered human life. In 2005, the National Academies published guidelines for scientists who do research with human embryonic stem cells to encourage responsible and ethically sensitive conduct in their work. What the public must realize is that embryonic stem cell research often involves removing the inner cell mass from “excess” blastocysts that are unneeded by couples who have completed their fertility treatment. Wouldn’t it make sense to use these unwanted cells for research instead of wasting them?

The reason for this intricate research is that it has created hope for the future and a practical use for unwanted embryos. The most established stem cell-based therapies already in use -- blood and skin transplants -- give hope that someday stem cells will allow scientists to develop therapies for a variety of diseases previously thought to be incurable.

Just think: Someday we could live in a world where cancer would not kill more than 500,000 people per year and maybe even brain tissue could be rejuvenated after a serious accident. Stem cell research could eventually give Americans cures to Parkinson’s disease and diabetes. Just like with developing a new drug, for stem cell research to come up with an actual cure for these terrible fates could take decades of testing.

To ensure the legal act of stem cell research, the public needs to be informed on what goes on inside the laboratories and what results have been found so far. History has proven to the public that so much can happen in a small amount of time, but this project could take the longest. Stem cells are not a difficult issue to take a side on: either you think a microscopic embryo has the same human rights as you and I, or you don’t.

For those people on the decision fence, rethink the valuable information stem cells bring to the scientific community and choose which side to jump to. If you see the benefits that will come to society in the long run, the future looks pretty hopeful on the right side of the fence.

Tori Minovich is a resident of Parker.

Comments

  • December 10, 2008

    5:26 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    I agree 100%. We must not let the Politicians and religious zealots stop the progress.

  • December 10, 2008

    6:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    blacksho89 writes:

    Toni: Where to start? Well, perhaps your assertion that "embryonic stem cells are flexible and immortal". Nothing is immortal. This statement is so patently false and ignorant that it is obvious that your letter can not be taken seriously.
    But to get to the end: Despite the Big Lie told by radicals such as yourself, embryonic stem cell research has ALWAYS been legal in the US. Bush did not make it illegal.

  • December 10, 2008

    7:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    NoMoe writes:

    Lets look at a scenario. Lets say that the scientists invest heavily into embryonic stem cell research and they find out that they are able to cut the rate of cancer deaths by injecting patients with embryonic stem cells. In order to meet the demand, they have to raise a "farm" of embryos to harvest the stem cells.

    Now, this may not bother some of you, but for some of us, we feel this is an abomination, And, you will have to agree, at least, that it is truly the macabre (harvesting humans). The end result is that a good portion of us will decline the procedure due to the moral implications.

    Is it the best decision for everyone to continue embryonic research, even though it is only for some "selected" individuals?

  • December 10, 2008

    9:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Marshdale writes:

    NoMoe: Most of the stem cells that are used are leftovers from invitro fertilization for people who can't get pregnant otherwise. They get flushed down the drain. So the idea of creating a embryo farm is rediculous NoMoe. The point is, if you believe that it is imoral to use them, which is worse? Using them to save a life, or flushing them down the drain all for naught?

  • December 10, 2008

    9:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    NoMoe writes:

    Marshdale. That is a good point and I understand your point of view. However, the amount of embryonic stem cells used refers to research only. How much is needed in full scale production? Are you saying there is absolutely no way embryos will be grown in order for supply to meet the demand? Can anyone assure us of this issue?

    Another question (truly, I don't know the answer). Has there ever been any viable treatment created using embryonic stem cells?

  • December 10, 2008

    10:45 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    idk writes:

    First off, as the parent of a child with a chronic illness, I fully support embryonic stem cell research. I do believe that a cure for my child's illness (type 1 diabetes) could become a reality with this research. However, I do understand the arguements against such research and I think the writer of this opinion piece is wrong to state that her opinion is correct and all others are wrong. I personally believe that embryonic cells are not "life." If curing my child meant growing new stem cells with contributions from my husband and myself, I would be first in line. But I do understand that others are not comfortable with this and I don't want to dismiss their misgivings. It is the opposition to embryonic stem cell research that will continue to keep the science within moral boundaries. We need to hear from both sides on this issue and both sides need to listen and address the concerns of the other side before we can move forward on this issue. I am always saddened when a stem cell discussion comes up and both sides resort to "I'm right, you're wrong" arguements. I think the truth and the solution lies somewhere in the middle.

  • December 10, 2008

    11:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ColoNative writes:

    What if Hitler would have had modern medical technology at his disposal? Kind of scary.

  • December 10, 2008

    11:07 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Marshdale writes:

    NoMoe; As a matter of fact it has been tested in animals with some success. Since humans are mammals, I don't see why we can't make it work for us to. Honestly, how many people need a transplant. It's not that many comparitively speeking. There is an abundance of left over invitro stem cells. More than enough to supply the demand. I think the moral issue is at what cost to society will prolonging the human bodies ability to survive have? If people don't eventually die, what will the society be like. I think there are pros and cons to both sides of the arguement.

  • December 10, 2008

    11:59 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ILoveChipotle writes:

    I'm all for stem cell research - just not embryonic. Killing babies for the greater good? I don't think so.

  • December 10, 2008

    1:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    NoMoe writes:

    I think it is wonderful that this discussion so far has been very civil without all the name calling and such as you see on other forums. I may not agree with everyone who posted, but I think it is important to hear all sides.

  • December 10, 2008

    6:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    TimeLord writes:

    "I'm all for stem cell research - just not embryonic. Killing babies for the greater good? I don't think so."

    Mmmm. Is in vitro fertilization murder? Almost all cases result in excess fertilized embryos which are ultimately disposed of. The hypothetical suggestion of farming aside, is it less moral to destroy these is a way which yields scientific knowledge and potential benefits? Are the thousands and thousands of people living today as a result of IVF all the children of murderers?

  • December 10, 2008

    7:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    moonjest writes:

    TimeLord, you're asking the right questions, and NoMoe, I think your concerns are valid. The broader question is whether purposely creating embryos to destroy them is ethical, and that applies to IVF. How you answer that question, and how you view an embryo, will determine your stance on embryonic stem cell research.

    ColoNative, if Hitler had modern medical technology at his disposal, he likely would have experimented with it directly on humans without misgiving. Then, after we would conquer Germany, we would condemn his actions but use the results of his research. =)

  • December 10, 2008

    10:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    NoMoe writes:

    One thing I like to add, if I may? My question to the forum is... What makes a human a person?

    A conservative estimate in the U.S. is that 75 percent of the population believe that a person is made up of the physical body, the metaphysical (mind), and something else as in a spiritual nature. Most religions and many agnostics believe in the spiritual aspect of the person.

    My final question is... When is the spiritual side created? I can safely answer this for everyone on this earth. No one absolutely knows. And, there is the rub.