Debate ensues at UP in response to Obama's decision about stem cell research
By Katie Schleiss
President Obama's decision to lift a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is being both hailed and damned at the University of Portland. Debate has ensued over what implications this legislation has for Catholic universities participating in research and science graduates entering the workforce.
Not surprisingly, those who oppose the action the president took last week center their arguments on the destruction of human life that occurs in embryonic stem cell research. Supporters say the decision will lead to scientific advances that could cure diseases and better the quality of life for millions. Many are concerned of whether this legislation is sensitive to the concerns of taxpayers who don't want to pay for research that requires embryo destruction.
President Obama lifted the proclaiming that scientific decisions would now be made on the basis of scientific facts, not ideology. In doing so, he reversed former President George W. Bush's policy banning federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, where Bush argued that the use of taxpayer money for the destruction of human life was unethical. Bush claimed that he was defending human life because embryos, typically from fertility clinics and already destined for destruction, were being destroyed to create the stem cells used in scientific research.
Biology professor Ami Ahern-Rindell said that this will broaden the field in research and allow scientists to explore different areas. She said that this will have a positive impact economically and will create more research capabilities so someday science can treat more conditions.
"There are many different avenues with embryonic stem cell research and we should pursue every available option," Ahern-Rindell said. "It's really a win-win situation."
Obama asserts that this legislation is meant to restore scientific integrity to government decision-making. He called this the beginning of a process of ensuring his administration bases its decisions on sound science. He also promised that promised no scientific data will be distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda.
Ahern-Rindell said that the U.S. shouldn't shut the door on stem cell research. She described Bush's ban on embryonic stem cell research as "pretty silly" and said that it made it difficult for researchers to be productive. Although Bush didn't want to give federal funds to embryonic stem cells, private companies could still award grants to researchers. Ahern-Rindell said that this created a double standard and made it complicated for labs. If one microscope was bought using federal funds, the researcher couldn't use it to look at a slide of embryonic stem cells. People had to divide up lab equipment for projects, making the process a big hassle.
"I personally support this, but from a Catholic standpoint this wouldn't be favorable," Ahern-Rindell said. "The big debate then becomes over when life starts."
From a biological perspective, according to Ahern-Rindell, life starts when the embryo has nervous system function and begins to develop. This process starts after the stem cells have been harvested. According to Catholics, life starts at conception.
"There is an understanding that there are differences over when life begins," Ahern-Rindell said. "I base my opinion on solid data and facts and look at it from a scientific angle." Ahern-Rindell said that the University has been supportive in bringing information forward for the discussion of ethical issues, but there are differences of opinion across many religions over when life begins. Ahern-Rindell said that she and her students certainly talk about this debate in class, raising ethical questions and discussing them.
Obama called his decision a difficult and delicate balance with intense emotions generated on both sides of the debate. Obama said that the majority of Americans support increased funding for the research, both because strict oversight would prevent problems and because of the lifesaving potential this type of research holds. Although many scientists have conducted embryonic stem cell research with private funding, this particular legislation raises the question of whether taxpayers should have to fund something so ethically charged or support actions with which they don't agree.
Senior Alison Moran, an education major with a minor in biology, said that this legislation is a fantastic step forward for scientific research. Although she considers herself to be a faithful Christian, she said that this type of research is necessary. She said that embryo cells do not have nerve cells until at least day 14 after conception, meaning that the embryo has no notion of pain at the time when it is collected. Embryo cells collected for stem cell research are taken before this nerve cell development period.
"I think that the vast majority of eggs are from in-vitro fertilization and are just sitting around in storage," Moran said. "If both parents consent, there is a legitimate purpose to use those embryos for research purposes."
Moran said that many diseases could be cured from embryonic stem cell research. She said that scientists could take genetic information from an adult, inject it into the embryonic cells, and then graft the cells onto a damaged organ. This would have special significance for genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia. Bone marrow transplants created from this process would lessen the risk of rejection.
Researchers have made strides in alternative stem cell research in recent years. Cowan said that many successes in treating patients with stem cells thus far have involved adult or umbilical cord blood stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.
Those supporting embryonic stem cell research assert that these cells are pluripotent, or capable of becoming any kind of cell. Other alternative approaches have had success as well. The 2007 discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells, however, allows stem cells to be produced from skin cells. By injecting genes that force the cells to revert to the primitive "blank state" form, these stem cells created from adult cells have all the same pluripotent capabilities of embryonic stem cells.
According to Ahern-Rindell, tissue repair requires many adult stem cells, created by taking a cell that has already been differentiated and then regressing it to act like an embryonic stem cell. Then, scientists could take something like a skin cell and use it as a tool to repair all different types of tissues. Time Magazine named induced pluripotent stem cells as the number one innovation on its "Top 10 Scientific Discoveries" of 2007.
Ann Cowan, vice president of UP's Voice for Life, doesn't support embryonic stem cell research. She said that she doesn't support destroying life for scientific pursuits. "The debate over stem cell research is ethical," Cowan said. "Is the embryo a human life and does it deserve to be protected?" With the progress of adult stem cell research and umbilical cord blood research, she said that this shows that alternative stem cell research is working.
Cowan said that embryos contain the DNA of a human being, and given the right nutrients and right environment it has the potential to grow into a human being. "There isn't the ethical debate with alternative methods because it doesn't destroy a human life," Cowan said. "Many scientists say that life begins at conception, because the embryo is growing and things that aren't alive don't grow."
