LAC News
ESCR: By Whatever Means Necessary?
By By LaToya Cain
August 2008

“As a mother of a diabetic child, I don’t care where a cure comes from — adult or embryonic or induced pluripotent stem cells — as long as a cure is developed.” — Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado).

Some of us have watched our loved ones succumb to such debilitating diseases as Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis.  At CWA, we have watched our own editor struggle against the bane of diabetes.  Yet, while curing such diseases is undoubtedly a compassionate goal to pursue, the means by which we arrive at that goal matters very much. 

Does the path we take require us to take unethical actions?  In addressing the issue of destructive embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), how congressional members answer this question matters a great deal if they want to make a compassionate and ethical decision regarding ESCR.  Embryonic stem cell research requires the creation of a human embryo — and its destruction — in order to use the cells to do research that may or may not lead to treatments.

Having lost ground on the ethical debate over the appropriateness of ESCR, proponents argue for the ability of ESCR to yield positive results.  There’s only one problem: ESCR hasn’t yielded positive results.  However, adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) are already yielding positive results.  Mounting evidence for the effectiveness of adult stem cells iPS have highlighted the reasons to raise the standard for stem cell research.  Positive and negative legislative developments reflect this. 

At the first major hearing on stem cell research in this Congress, Rep. DeGette announced that she, along with lead co-sponsor Rep. Michael Castle (R-Delaware), plan to introduce a bill which lifts the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.  Despite the lack of evidence for the need for such a measure, Rep. DeGette states that, in light of all the new stem cell research advancements, this is the best legislative plan of action for Congress to take. 

Thankfully, not every member of Congress is willing to blindly follow Rep. DeGette.  In fact, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Virginia) introduced H.R 2807, the Patient’s First Act of 2007, last summer to federally fund stem cell research which shows evidence of substantial clinical benefit to patients.

Proponents of ESCR remain convinced that it will one day produce cures, despite the complete lack of evidence that it actually can and regardless of its unethical implications.  Adult stem cells can be taken from the placenta and umbilical cord blood cells with no harm done to the baby.  As was pointed out by Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-New Jersey) at the hearing on the future of stem cell research held by the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Health, hundreds of thousands of babies are born every day, making resources for adult stem cells from placenta and umbilical cords readily available for research purposes today and for years to come. 

Considering the fact that embryonic stem cells are scarcer than adult stem cells, increasing the demand for them will lead to greater pressure for egg donations to create embryos, aborted embryos and fetuses.  This spawns even more unethical problems.

Proponents of ESCR argue that adult stem cells are limited in their ability to successfully treat varying medical conditions.  Currently, there are 73 different conditions in which patient health has been documented to improve through the use of adult stem cell therapy.[i]  This is “limited”?  ESCR has not produced even one.

Sidestepping this fact, ESCR proponents assert that it is the novelty of the approach that accounts for ESCR’s zero record of successfully treated patients.  At 73-0, adult stem cell therapy is the hands-down winner, and yet, ESCR is still the “gold standard” of stem cell science for liberals.  Unlike ESCR, iPS cells do not present ethical challenges by using eggs or embryos.  And iPS cells have already been credited with the ability to produce real results.