More on the stem cell research decision

Bob Parks writes:

On Monday federal judge Royce Lamberth, appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan, blocked the use of federal funds for research using embryonic stem cells on the grounds that extracting the cells kills human embryos. It is of course true that, for good or ill, every embryo has the potential to become a totally unique human being. The same is true of every zygote created by the fusion of gametes in an in-vitro fertilization Petri dish. One or more of the resulting embryos will be transferred to the patient's uterus a few days later. There will typically be many embryos left over. They are stored cryogenically in case a second transfer is necessary. By 2008 about 500,000 frozen embryos had accumulated in cryogenic facilities around the United States. That would be closer to 1 million by now, all of which retain the potential to become unique human beings. Does Judge Lamberth’s decision mean that society must now assume responsibility for the continued viability of this growing population of potential people?

Sally Lehman writes in the September edition of Scientific American:

When researchers first demonstrated in 2007 that human skin cells could be reprogrammed to behave like stem cells that can fully differentiate into other cells, scientists and politicians alike rejoiced. All the potential of embryonic stem cells might be harnessed with the new techniques—without the political and moral controversy associated with destroying a fertilized egg.

That optimism, however, may be misplaced; these transformed cells, known as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells), actually present equally troubling ethical quandaries, according to bioethicists who met at the International Society for Stem Cell Research annual meeting in June. Not only do many of the ethical challenges posed by embryonic stem cells remain, but the relative ease and low cost of iPS techniques, combined with the accessibility of cells, accelerate the need to address futuristic-sounding possibilities such as creating gametes for reproduction. Scientists have already reported progress in growing precursor cells for eggs and sperm from both iPS and embryonic stem cell lines.

Image source

Clearly we need to discuss in some detail the ethics of stem cell research and of the techniques that will be generated by this research. Of course those whose ethical positions are influenced by their religious views (either on the embryo or the responsibility to people who might be helped by new medical techniques but will not be due to delays in the research) have the right and perhaps the responsibility to put forward their views in that discussion. On the other hand, lets not let Congress slip policy into amendments to funding bills without proper debate, nor let judges use judicial activism without full discussion and the participation of those scientists who can best estimate the importance of stem cell research.