Stem Cell Research: Win, Win, Win by Keeping Politics Out
Authors: Inder M. Verma
Journal: Molecular Therapy (2001)

It is rare that an entity comes along with enormous potential impact on human health and quality of life. Stem cells are one of these, offering potential cures for scourges like diabetes, Parkinson's disease, neurological degeneration, and congenital heart disease. Indeed, it is estimated that human embryonic stem cells could cure more than 125 million people of various afflictions in the U.S. alone. Given this potential, why such an unsavory debate? Briefly defined, a stem cell “can perpetually make more of its own kind and also give rise to a variety of many other mature cells in the body, essentially for the whole life of an individual.” In the past, for most of us, mention of stem cells meant replicating and differentiating hematopoietic stem cells. There are the subtleties of pluripotent stem cells, progenitor cells, committed cell, etc., but it is generally agreed that between 1 and 10 pluripotent hematopoietic stem cells can repopulate the entire hematopoiesis of a mouse. Stem cells have also been discovered that can regenerate brain, skin, liver, etc. So why the fuss? The difference lies between these “adult” stem cells and embryonic stem cells. No one argues about adult stem cells; even President Bush supports the “wonderful opportunities of adult stem cell research.” It is embryonic stem cell research that raises opponents’ hackles. Antiabortionists vehemently object to their use because they believe that such cells will be obtained from intentionally aborted fetuses. They do not distinguish the embryonic source, e.g., frozen embryos leftover from in vitro fertilization or embryos implanted to perhaps become a fetus. Although nearly invisible, the blastocyst-stage embryo is composed of 100 to 200 undifferentiated cells, any of which can give rise to a particular lineage or tissue. However, none of them will develop into a complete individual. It is possible that such cells can become a pancreatic islet or a neuronal cell. In addition, scientists have made embryonic stem cell lines equivalent to mouse ES cells. Although adult stem cells may be able to perform some of the same functions as embryonic cells, the efficiency of embryonic cells to do so is likely to be much higher. Also, the problem of immunological tolerance is less likely with embryonic stem cells. Finally, embryonic stem cells are still the best tool available for investigating the biology of adult stem cells (1Lanza R.P. Science over politics (letter).Science. 1999; 283: 1849Crossref Google Scholar). Granted, abortion is a political, emotional, religious, and very personal issue. The current U.S. administration vocally opposes it. Indeed, one of its first actions was to eliminate funds from Planned Parenthood organizations, although this may increase abortions rather than limit them. Consistent with this position, abortion opponents label stem cell research as “destruction of life” by portraying embryos, I believe unfairly, as “the tiniest person.” The reality is that an embryo not implanted is an embryo destined to remain an embryo. Stem cell research offers such a great promise that we must rise above technical squabbling over the moral status of an embryo: It should simply not be used as a yardstick to advance political agendas. To date, embryonic stem cell research is approved in Israel, Australia, and Britain (and several other European countries): U.S. scientists will no doubt watch their progress with envy and discontent. I believe the vast majority of Americans, when apprised of the scientific facts and the potential benefit of stem cells, will overwhelmingly support this research. Finally, if the Bush administration halts even the current levels of federal stem cell research funding, nonfederal organizations will certainly undertake it, but not necessarily to the benefit of those patients who have the most to lose in this political game. Let us not miss this golden opportunity.