Q&A: Frequently asked questions about stem cell research
- Mar 11, 2009 - 6
WASHINGTON—President Obama’s executive order March 9 will drastically expand the federal government’s role in embryonic stem cell research. Following is a list of frequently asked questions, along with answers, about stem cells.
What are stem cells?
Stem cells are the body’s master cells from which all cells and tissues are formed. Because some types of stem cells in theory can develop into any type of tissue, they seemingly hold the promise to cure diseases and other ailments.
Where are stem cells found?
Generally, in two sources: 1) throughout the human body, such as in skin cells, and 2) in embryos. Stem cells found in the human body are referred to as “adult stem cells,” while stem cells in the second category are known as “embryonic stem cells.” Adult stem cell research is harmless and is not controversial. Embryonic stem cell research, though, requires the destruction of embryos and is very controversial. President Obama’s executive order pertained primarily to this second category.
What did President Obama’s executive order do?
Obama’s order overturned President Bush’s stem cell limits, which had prohibited federal funds from being used for conducting research on embryonic stem cell lines created after Aug. 9, 2001 (the date of Bush’s announcement). Obama’s order allows taxpayer dollars to be used for funding research on hundreds of other embryonic stem cell lines. Technically, under Obama’s order researchers won’t be allowed to use federal funds to destroy embryos. (A Congressional amendment known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment prevents federally funding the destruction of embryos.) Researchers will, though, be able to conduct federally funded research on stem cells that were taken from embryos destroyed in the private sector. Critics say Obama’s order — while not directly funding it — will encourage the destruction of more embryos.
Was embryonic stem cell research banned prior to Obama’s order?
No. All embryonic stem cell research has been legal in the private sector, and some of it (see above) already was receiving federal funding.
Didn’t Obama say he was opposed to human cloning?
Not really. Obama appeared to rule out human cloning in his statement, but he also issued a qualifier. He said, “We will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction.” Obama apparently is opposed to reproductive cloning — that is, the actual cloning of a person whereby a baby is born — but he is leaving the door open for federal funds being used for therapeutic cloning, which is the cloning of an embryo in order to harvest its stem cells. In other words, he may be for cloning, as long as the cloned embryo is destroyed. Opponents call it “cloning and killing.” The same laboratory procedure — known as somatic cell nuclear transfer — is used for both types of cloning.
Why do some people oppose embryonic stem cell research?
For three basic reasons: 1) it requires the destruction of embryos, tiny human beings, 2) adult stem cell research, thus far, has had more success, and 3) a new form of stem cell research known as “induced pluripotent” stem cell research could provide embryonic-like stem cells without the ethical dilemma. Some opponents of embryonic stem cell research also say the “extra” embryos — which often are donated by fertility clinics — should instead be given a chance to be adopted in “snowflake” embryo adoption programs, whereby they would be implanted in a woman and grow into a baby.
What are induced pluripotent stem cells?
Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) are a new form of stem cells whereby scientists reprogram adult skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells — and thus provide scientists with the stem cells they desire without the need to destroy embryos. Embryos are not destroyed or created during the process. iPS stem cells were introduced to the world during a breakthrough announcement in 2007, and on March 2 of this year scientists announced they had found a better way to make them that would be safer for patients. One scientist involved in the March 2 announcement said iPS stem cells perhaps could eliminate “the need for human embryos as a source of stem cells.”
What does “pluripotent” mean?
The term “pluripotent” means the stem cells theoretically can morph into any of the body’s issues. Embryonic stem cells also are pluripotent. By contrast, adult stem cells are “multipotent,” meaning they can morph into many, though not all, of the body’s cell types. iPS stem cells would have an advantage over embryonic stem cells in that they would already have the patient’s own DNA — because the patient’s skin cell was used to make them. They would, then, be less likely to be rejected by the patient’s body. There have yet to be any human trials using iPS stem cells.
If induced pluripotent stem cell research shows so much progress, then why do scientists support embryonic stem cell research?
Scientists who back research involving embryos say they are excited about the potential of iPS research but want both types to be funded to determine which one is more successful.
Has embryonic stem cell research in the private sector found any cures?
No. Scientists have struggled to control embryonic stem cells in the lab. Often, experiments involving such stem cells in animals have led to tumors. Bernadine Healy, the head of the National Institutes of Health under the first President Bush, wrote in a March 4 column for U.S. News & World Report that “several events” since Obama took office have “reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, are obsolete.” She pointed in part to the iPS breakthrough.
Has adult stem cell research led to any cures?
Although scientists who work with adult stem cell research probably wouldn’t use the word “cure,” they have seen adult stem cells do wonders in specific patients. One organization that keeps track of such advances — known as Do No Harm — says adult stem cells have treated 73 different ailments, including diabetes and leukemia. In fact, most of the attention-grabbing headlines relating to advances in stem cell research involve adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.
How long will it take scientists to find cures involving embryonic stem cells?
No one knows, but it likely is years away, at best. In 2006 a California institute, set up to oversee $3 billion in public embryonic stem cell funding, released a report with its goals. The report promised no cures at the end of a 10-year period and said the institute simply hoped to have “preliminary evidence” from at least one embryonic stem cell trial at the end of the period. Scientists’ understanding of embryonic stem cells, the report said, is “incomplete.”
This article is reprinted with permission from Baptist Press.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Life, Stem-Cell Research
Comments are closed. Please use our contact form if you have any thoughts or questions.
comments
1 On Mar 11th, 2009, at 9:09am, Yvonne Whetzel wrote:
When women deliver babies, the cord blood is a source of embryonic cells. This blood is discarded UNLESS the woman has requested that the cord blood be collected. This should be the only way to use this blood. It must be planned ahead through the Doctor who can provide documents to be signed. I think this should be the fight AGAINST destroying embryos. WE ALREADY HAVE A SOURCE—-USE IT1
2 On Mar 11th, 2009, at 8:04pm, Daniel - T8 wrote:
Amen Yvonne!
However.. not too sure that cord blood are still considered ‘embryonic stem cells’ - i will be doing a stem cell procedure in costa rica next month where they have been using cord blood for YEARS! Regardless, umbilical cord blood / cells are not as ethically challenged as the ‘traditional’ stem cells the previous goverment administration has made the public believe.
3 On Mar 11th, 2009, at 8:09pm, Daniel -T8 wrote:
Oh by the way Yvonne, do you know anyone that has been in a catastrophic injury - maybe a spinal cord injury? Put yourself on the other side of the table…
4 On Mar 12th, 2009, at 11:20am, Matt wrote:
Daniel,
In the event that I myself face such an injury as you described, I hope I would have the “ethical presence-of-mind” to ask myself the following question:
P.S. By the way, you correctly identify the stem cells from cord blood as ‘not embryonic’, rather they are ‘embryonic-like’. I also agree that there is no ethical problem with them. However, I’m not sure what you mean by “the previous government administration has made the public believe.” I don’t recall that administration indicating any ethical issue with using non-embryonic stem cells. Correct me if I’m wrong… thanks!
5 On Mar 12th, 2009, at 10:34pm, Daniel - T8-SCi wrote:
Regarding the previous goverment administration and stem cells, Mr Bush led the public to believe that the only source for stem cells came from the sacrifice of babies. As you are aware, this is not the case. There are many sources for stem cells, some including bone marrow, skin cells, and as you stated, umbillical cord blood. Correct?
I assure you that I, without question, have the “ethical presence-of-mind” to make a moral decision regarding my own treatment and the research of stem cells that is necessary to improve the quality of life for millions of people that are afflicted with injury or disease, both now and in the future.
6 On Mar 31st, 2009, at 1:14pm, Morgan wrote:
How long have stem cells been researched and where in the body are the most common places to get stem cells from, like I know that your hip bone is full of stem cells but where else in the body are stem cells extremely plentiful?