Harvard plans to grow stem cells
By: Laurie Vordtriede
Issue date: 3/17/04 Section: News
- Page 1 of 1
| |
|
Harvard officials announced plans Feb. 29 to open a multi-million dollar, privately funded center to grow and study human embryonic stem cells. The center would be the largest privately financed stem cell research project in the United States.
Tentatively called the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, the facility would bring together researchers from the university and its affiliated hospitals. The research center has to be funded privately because President George W. Bush has drastically limited federal money to create new lines of stem cells, citing ethical reasons.
Stem cell research has the potential to break new ground in treating a wide range of diseases, such as Parkinson's and diabetes, and in preventing and treating heart disease, some forms of cancer and arthritis.
Stem cells are "blank" cells found in human embryos, umbilical cords and placentas. They develop into the different types of cells that make up the human body. The purpose of the research is to one day direct stem cells to grow into replacement organs and tissues, such as muscle cells, nerve cells and blood cells.
The controversy lies in the method researchers use to collect the cells. To harvest a stem cell, scientists must destroy embryos that are only a few days old. The procedure has been condemned by opponents of abortion and some religious groups as being unethical.
"Stem cell research is kind of a touchy issue," said Teal Saunders, a sophomore biology major. "Because harvesting stem cells destroys the embryo, it's sort of along the same lines as abortion. A lot of people think it destroys human life."
Creating embryos intended only for research raises questions about the ethics of stem cell science.
According to the National Institutes of Health's official Web site on stem cell information, scientists in Virginia inserted a new element into the debate in 2001 by announcing they had created human embryos specifically for the purpose of extracting the stem cells. Before then, research had only been conducted on embryos left over from fertility treatments or abortions.
"One of the moral issues at stake in the embryonic stem cell debate is what's called the 'discarded vs. created' distinction," said Kate Parsons of the Center for Ethics at Webster. "Some argue that we ought to draw a moral distinction between embryos that are created primarily for research purposes and those that are created by parents intending to carry them to term who ultimately decide to abort.
"The question of intent is at the heart of the matter. Does it make a moral difference whether the embryo was developed with the intention of being used for research or whether it was developed with the intention of being used for reproduction?"
Parsons said some opponents say the intention makes a big difference.
"Opponents claim that to develop an embryo with reproduction as the intent is ultimately more 'respectful' of human life than to create an embryo intended for research," she said. "Thus, they claim, we should only consider research on embryos that are discarded or not created for the sake of research, but will not be used for reproduction anyway."
Parsons cited Erik Parens, associate for Philosophical Studies at the Hastings Center, for pointing out the argument that "the embryo's creators' intentions are morally irrelevant. We do not, after all, rest decisions about how to treat a child based on whether its parents planned to have it or not. 'Unplanned' children are not worthy of less respect, and 'planned' children are not worthy of more respect."
Saunders said a breakthrough in stem cell research could change the nature of the debate. Another source of controversy is the fact that tax payers' money would go into funding the research which many opponents don't agree with.
"I think that once scientists actually find a way to cure something like Alzheimer's, people will start to change their minds," she said. "If there was the necessary federal funding to speed it up and make that happen, I think most people would agree that stem cell research can be a valuable tool for health care."
Parsons pointed out that although the research would ideally benefit everyone with diseases, it won't necessarily happen.
"In addition to asking 'from whom' the money come should, some ethicists are claiming that we also need to be asking 'to whom' the potential benefits of this research should go," she said. "On one level, the answer is simple: To everyone. If we invest in this research, we all have the potential to reap the benefits. We all have someone near and dear to us who might be profoundly helped, if the technology meets its projected potential.
"Yet, on another level, our health care system complicates this profoundly," Parsons continued. "Most of us are well aware of the rising costs of health care in this country and the effect this is having, particularly on low-income workers. Several months ago the New York Times reported that 43.6 million Americans do not have health insurance, raising the fraction of uninsured Americans to 15 percent. This, then, is where the moral and the political questions are deeply intertwined. When we ask 'who will benefit from this research?' we are forced to consider not just who will benefit ideally, but who is likely to benefit as well. The technological developments coming from stem cell research may be in principle available to everyone, but perhaps practically only available to those with considerable financial resources."
Parsons said that in raising this question she's not suggesting that funding for stem cell research should remain private or that research should be abandoned for the sake of securing basic health care for all.
"I simply think it's worth recognizing that the questions in this debate are not clearly isolable from other moral and political questions and dilemmas that we currently face," she said.
