Cloning/Stem Cell Research:
Embryonic Stem Cells Are Not the Only ‘Promising’ Path to Cures

view the .pdf | note: all footnotes are included within the .pdf

November 2002

By Len Deo, President of the NJ Family Policy Council with Toni Meyer

On Nov. 4th, 2002, a NJ Senate panel heard debate on a new bill that would allow research on stem cells derived from human embryos. Absent from the news articles which reported on the debate, was any discussion of the existing research that shows adults stem cells to be an equal, if not more promising path to curing many diseases and even spinal cord injuries.

The media has pervasively promoted the idea that “Embryonic stem cells are the most valuable stem cells available to research” . But this is a false assumption according to results of research using adult stem cells. In fact, Indiana State University cell biologist David Prentice stated that “Adult tissues may actually be more promising sources of stem cells used for transplants than human embryos”, and that “Adult stem cell research has (already) shown progress in treating Lupus, Parkinson’s Disease, damaged corneas, and hearts, while embryonic stem cells have failed to live up to their potential”. Minnesota researchers issued yet another study in July 2002, which challenged the notion that embryonic stem cell research is necessary. The new study found that there is an almost unlimited supply of stem cells available from adult bone marrow. Dr. Prentice explains that “the advantage of these cells over embryonic cells are two-fold: They don’t cause tumors when you inject them, and the patient could use their own cells so you wouldn’t have to worry about transplant rejection” .

Another commonly reported statement is that embryonic cells, in particular, “show great promise for medical researchers because they evolve into any kind of cell in the body”. Adult stem cells have already been proven to evolve into different cells in the body. In August 2001, McGill University researchers of the Montreal Neurological Institute published their findings in which skin-derived adult stem cells produced different types of cells and did so at amazing speed . “These scientists were driven by the hope of bringing science closer to treatments for spinal cord injuries, diabetes, heart disease and brain disorders – treatments made from patients’ own cells”. There is even promising news that adult stem cells may be used to treat Parkinson’s disease. According to a Nov. 12, 2001 Thomas Jefferson University news release, Jefferson researchers have early evidence of bone marrow stem cells being able to become brain cells.

If the research is so promising and already showing results, why then, would advocates of unlimited stem cell research be strongly promoting embryonic research, and testifying before both a U.S. Senate Subcommittee and our NJ Senate Panel that federal limitations (which do not allow research on new stem cell lines) have “slowed” research? The only hypothesis is that their argument is being driven purely by monetary factors. These scientists want to access the donated or “free” embryonic stem cells that would be available from the multi-billion dollar fertility industry with hundreds of clinics nationwide . This is what the NJ bill would facilitate. Therefore we are being asked to put money and profits above people, and the dignity of human life.

Using “spare” human embryos that were formed in the in vitro fertilization process, (the first morally debated action), and then trying to justify their destruction by finding another “use” for them does not transform the embryo’s death into anything less than death. What about allowing infertile couples to adopt these embryos for implantation, rather than sanctioning their destruction?

Adult stem cells come from areas of the mature human body such as bone marrow, skin and umbilical cord blood, without the loss of human life. Let’s put our state’s efforts behind research that is both scientifically promising and ethically sound.

 

back...