Good news on stem cell research
There's a significant paradigm shift underway in the world of stem cell research. It started last week, with the announcement of Ian Wilmut, the scientist behind the cloning of Dolly, that he would no longer be pursuing therapeutic cloning:
It's been confirmed this week with new articles showing that the method that somatic reprogramming, the rival technique that Dr. Wilmut has decided to pursue, has been successful for human cells (from National Review):
For a long time now, pro-lifers, such as myself, have been saying that alternative methods of obtaining stem cells not only exist, but show more potential. Now that scientists who have long had a vested interest in therapeutic cloning have come to agree (not only Ian Wilmut, but also James Thompson, who originally isolated embryonic stem cells), it looks like the pendulum has finally swung in our direction. For purely practical reasons, scientists will begin moving away from embryo destructive research to this new method, and while embryonic stem cell research won't go away immediately, the demand for funding and more embryonic stem cell lines should fade quickly (although not immediately, as politicians such as Senator Harkin will continue to push for it). We shouldn't neglect the convictions of those who stood in the way of embryonic stem cell research. Columnists such as Charles Krauthamer and Kathryn Lopez, politicians such as former Massachusetts Governor Romney and President Bush, churches and pro-life organizations and voters everywhere all helped. Their opposition to embryo destructive research, pushing back hard on the media and political tsunami that promised miracles if and only if embryonic stem cell research was pursued and accused all opposition as being anti-science religious zealots, helped to stem the tide, and encouraged (and no doubt forced in some cases) scientists to pursue alternate means. Without that, this method, which by all accounts is not only less controversial, but also works better, might never have been discovered.
So that's it, we've won, right? Therapeutic cloning is going the way of the dodo. Not so fast! We're missing something if we engage in triumphalism. This has been won not on principle, but on a technicality. Not because we've convinced people that our cause was just, but because science saved the day. We were lucky. We knew there were alternatives, we knew they looked promising, and thus we had an ace in the hole that played out not a moment too soon. Despite what some conservatives are saying right now, we cannot know and should not expect there to always be a more ethical alternative that delivers on all the promises of the unethical method and then some. It's not even a sure thing now. Yes, it looks good, but there's always a possibility that five years from now, somatic reprogramming will not pan out and therapeutic cloning will look like the only way to get the promised benefits. That's what Harkin's arguing, and he has a point. The general population has already demonstrated that they're willing to sacrifice embryos for cures. The fact that there's another, better way to get those cures may have stopped them for now, but our job is not done. We have some time now, and we need to use it to convince people that sacrificing embryos for their own health is not only inefficient, it's wrong. Unless we can convince people on the moral argument, we will lose the next time the question arises.
The first step will be the hardest, as it's something pro-lifers have been very reluctant to do before now. We need to take a stand on in vitro fertilization. Society's acceptance of this, and the pro-life movement's unwillingness to confront it, is the reason that embryonic stem cell research took us off-guard. While there's no reason to oppose IVF in principle, the current methods used are appallingly wasteful. The idea behind this fertility method is that redundancy is the key to successful pregnancy. This is why many eggs are fertilized but never used (resulting in the embryos "destined for destruction" which pro-embryonic stem cell activists like to point out). It also results in women being implanted with multiple embryos, often resulting in an overcrowded womb and a choice "between selective reduction" or children with debilitating birth defects. This commoditization of human life has to be opposed. While we shouldn't expect to stop it overnight, we can educate the public on it, push for less wasteful procedures, and encourage infertile couples to avoid the worst ones.
The scientist who created Dolly the sheep, a breakthrough that provoked headlines around the world a decade ago, is to abandon the cloning technique he pioneered to create her.
Prof Ian Wilmut's decision to turn his back on "therapeutic cloning", just days after US researchers announced a breakthrough in the cloning of primates, will send shockwaves through the scientific establishment.
He and his team made headlines around the world in 1997 when they unveiled Dolly, born July of the year before.
But now he has decided not to pursue a licence to clone human embryos, which he was awarded just two years ago, as part of a drive to find new treatments for the devastating degenerative condition, Motor Neuron disease.
Prof Wilmut, who works at Edinburgh University, believes a rival method pioneered in Japan has better potential for making human embryonic cells which can be used to grow a patient's own cells and tissues for a vast range of treatments, from treating strokes to heart attacks and Parkinson's, and will be less controversial than the Dolly method, known as "nuclear transfer."
His announcement could mark the beginning of the end for therapeutic cloning, on which tens of millions of pounds have been spent worldwide over the past decade. "I decided a few weeks ago not to pursue nuclear transfer," Prof Wilmut said.
It's been confirmed this week with new articles showing that the method that somatic reprogramming, the rival technique that Dr. Wilmut has decided to pursue, has been successful for human cells (from National Review):
Today’s papers bring news of an enormous advance in stem-cell research. Scientists in the United States and Japan have managed to turn regular human skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells — achieving what they’ve sought until now through the destruction of embryos, but without the need to use embryos, to use cloning, or to use eggs.
It is, to begin with, an extraordinary scientific achievement, with immense scientific potential. The new technique is much easier and cheaper than the use of embryos in research, and will likely bring about an explosion of new work on pluripotent stem cells and their applications.
But it is also, no less importantly, a powerful vindication of the premise behind much of the opposition to the destruction of embryos for research this past decade: the conviction that scientific advance need not require, and should not compel, the abandonment of ethical principles, and especially the principle of human equality that should cause us to cherish and guard every human life, from beginning to end.
In an effort to cause the country to abandon this conviction, some advocates of the research, including nearly every prominent Democrat in Congress, have made reckless and irresponsible promises, offered false hope to the suffering, depicted their opponents as heartless enemies of science, and exploited sick people for crass political gain.
For a long time now, pro-lifers, such as myself, have been saying that alternative methods of obtaining stem cells not only exist, but show more potential. Now that scientists who have long had a vested interest in therapeutic cloning have come to agree (not only Ian Wilmut, but also James Thompson, who originally isolated embryonic stem cells), it looks like the pendulum has finally swung in our direction. For purely practical reasons, scientists will begin moving away from embryo destructive research to this new method, and while embryonic stem cell research won't go away immediately, the demand for funding and more embryonic stem cell lines should fade quickly (although not immediately, as politicians such as Senator Harkin will continue to push for it). We shouldn't neglect the convictions of those who stood in the way of embryonic stem cell research. Columnists such as Charles Krauthamer and Kathryn Lopez, politicians such as former Massachusetts Governor Romney and President Bush, churches and pro-life organizations and voters everywhere all helped. Their opposition to embryo destructive research, pushing back hard on the media and political tsunami that promised miracles if and only if embryonic stem cell research was pursued and accused all opposition as being anti-science religious zealots, helped to stem the tide, and encouraged (and no doubt forced in some cases) scientists to pursue alternate means. Without that, this method, which by all accounts is not only less controversial, but also works better, might never have been discovered.
So that's it, we've won, right? Therapeutic cloning is going the way of the dodo. Not so fast! We're missing something if we engage in triumphalism. This has been won not on principle, but on a technicality. Not because we've convinced people that our cause was just, but because science saved the day. We were lucky. We knew there were alternatives, we knew they looked promising, and thus we had an ace in the hole that played out not a moment too soon. Despite what some conservatives are saying right now, we cannot know and should not expect there to always be a more ethical alternative that delivers on all the promises of the unethical method and then some. It's not even a sure thing now. Yes, it looks good, but there's always a possibility that five years from now, somatic reprogramming will not pan out and therapeutic cloning will look like the only way to get the promised benefits. That's what Harkin's arguing, and he has a point. The general population has already demonstrated that they're willing to sacrifice embryos for cures. The fact that there's another, better way to get those cures may have stopped them for now, but our job is not done. We have some time now, and we need to use it to convince people that sacrificing embryos for their own health is not only inefficient, it's wrong. Unless we can convince people on the moral argument, we will lose the next time the question arises.
The first step will be the hardest, as it's something pro-lifers have been very reluctant to do before now. We need to take a stand on in vitro fertilization. Society's acceptance of this, and the pro-life movement's unwillingness to confront it, is the reason that embryonic stem cell research took us off-guard. While there's no reason to oppose IVF in principle, the current methods used are appallingly wasteful. The idea behind this fertility method is that redundancy is the key to successful pregnancy. This is why many eggs are fertilized but never used (resulting in the embryos "destined for destruction" which pro-embryonic stem cell activists like to point out). It also results in women being implanted with multiple embryos, often resulting in an overcrowded womb and a choice "between selective reduction" or children with debilitating birth defects. This commoditization of human life has to be opposed. While we shouldn't expect to stop it overnight, we can educate the public on it, push for less wasteful procedures, and encourage infertile couples to avoid the worst ones.
