The Scientific Facts About Embryonic Stem Cell Research Its Promoters Don't Want You To Know

I agree with the fact that we do have to battle them on their own territory. But, I am not sure that we should throw out the moral grounds battle like she suggests. Without that ethical base, there is still too much that can be justified that shouldn't.

On Their Own Territory

Changing the Terms of the Embryonic Stem Cell Debate

By Gina Giacopuzzi

In the stem cell debate, embryonic stem cell research advocates advance two arguments in support of using human embryos for research: One, that standing in the way of research of any type is unethical; and two, that no other medical research contains the potential for similar advances. They are wrong on both fronts.

Let's set aside the moral implications of sacrificing human individuals so others' lives can be prolonged, and address the argument that embryonic stem cell proponents throw out blindly: The claim that embryonic research shows the most promise for curing a variety of life-threatening diseases.

Embryonic stem cell research is, in effect, the subprime mortgage market of the biotech industry. One need only look at the premise of the entire set-up to realize it's not a good idea. When President Barack Obama approved tax-funded embryonic stem cell research in March, he was in effect handing huge amounts of money to biotech researchers with nothing down-just as Countrywide Financial and HSBC did with homebuyers. We all know how that turned out.

The reason embryonic stem cell research is such a bad investment is the fact that, so far, it has produced no, or in some cases negative, results. Hypothetically, it sounds good-embryonic stem cells are largely undifferentiated and therefore blank slates. They could be directed to grow into heart cells, lung cells or skin cells. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are more differentiated and are theoretically less versatile.

However, for the same amount of time that scientists have been replicating adult stem cells and making progress by leaps and bounds, embryonic research has produced no tangible results. I'm no scientist, but even I can't understand why one or two narrow studies validate spending hundreds of millions more on unpromising research---especially when there's a viable alternative. Sure, some subprime borrowers didn't default on their mortgages. Does that justify continuing to issue high-risk mortgages?"

The benefits are largely hypothetical," a March 13, 2009 U.S. News and World Report article admitted. "The risks of embryonic stem cells, as well as cells programmed to become like them, include the possibility they will actually cause cancers in people who receive them."

Cardiologist Bernadine Healy, M.D., referenced a report from Israel published this year in PLoS Medicine that shows embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause tumors. She explains that the reason for this is that embryonic stem cells are fast growing by nature.

"Though they are tamed in a petri dish to be disciplined, mature cells, research in animals has shown repeatedly that sometimes the injected cells run wildly out of control," Healy noted in a recent article.

Adult stem cell research, which utilizes more developed cells-such as skin cells or liver cells-has made several advances. Scientific studies have found that adult stem cells show great promise in treating everything from spinal cord injuries to multiple sclerosis, and they have been successfully used in bone marrow transplants for years. In 2007, a team of scientists (including James Thomson, who was one of the scientists to first isolate embryonic stem cells) discovered a way to turn human skin cells into stem cells with the same characteristics as those derived from embryos. "It does seem there are multiple paths to the same outcome," Thomson said.

Adult stem cells have shown promise and even produced successful results in studies on angina, a heart condition involving blocked arteries (Science Daily), advanced heart failure (MYOHEART trial sponsored by Bioheart, Inc.), spinal cord injuries (Cell Transplantation), autoimmune diseases such as lupus, multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes (New York Academy of Sciences), Parkinson's disease (Bentham Open Stem Cell Journal), broken bones (the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), certain cancers and sickle-cell anemia (Bio-Matrix Scientific Group, Inc.)-just to name a few.

Embryonic stem cell research, on the other hand, has established no such advances-even before former president George W. Bush cut off federal funding for it in 2001. After Obama's approval, Examiner columnist Scott Ott satirized, "embryonic stem cell study promises cure for global warming." Proponents' claims aren't far off in terms of predictions. So far, no humans have been successfully treated with embryonic stem cells.

"Before human trials can even be safely undertaken researchers will have to overcome two serious difficulties that stand between patients and embryonic-cell regenerative medicine," said Wesley J. Smith, author of Culture of Death: The Assault of Medical Ethics on America. "One, embryonic stem cells cause tumors, and two, embryonic stem cells may be rejected by the immune system... Surmounting these difficulties - if they can be surmounted at all - will take a very long time and much expense."

Even so, within days of Obama's overturning the ban, the Food and Drug Administration approved embryonic stem cell research on humans.

It is difficult to estimate how many millions will be blown on this research, but the return for the American taxpayer is not promising.

I live in San Diego, which is to biotechnology what Simi Valley was to dot-coms. Obama's decision to restore funding to embryonic stem cell research was hailed as a victory for the research community. The local newspaper ran breathless headlines: "Scientists cheer Obama's stem cell reversal", "Stem cell company stocks rise on ban reversal." As the biotechs embark on their research binge, however, I can't help but think they'll wake up with a mortgage crisis-sized hangover. They're borrowing against equity on a risky investment, banking that its value will increase. In an uncertain economic environment, I could think of better uses for my tax money.

I don't mean to disregard the moral implications of embryonic stem cell research, which are of the greatest importance to the pro-life community. The horrific possibilities that this kind of experimentation suggests should not be taken lightly. Because of the moral heaviness of the argument, however, it's hard to see the issues that the other side is arguing. If we want to win this battle, we have to be able to defeat them on their own territory.

The fight against embryonic stem cell research will not be won on moral grounds. Our president has already shown his total disregard for life, even voting against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act during his Senate days. The success of his agendas depend on reiterating that right-wing advocates are anti-science, anti-progress, and clinging to their, as we love to say, guns and religion. As soon as we change the terms of discussion to economic, scientific, and practical consequences, they've lost. If we can demonstrate that writing a check for embryonic stem cell research makes as much sense as issuing a subprime mortgage, taxpayers should be as outraged over it as they were over AIG bonuses.

Gina is a veteran of several Survivors ProLife Training Camps, and currently lives in San Diego where she plans to attend law school in August 2009.