Many wonder what the big controversy is over these stem cells. Why are so many people debating over the study, development and use of them? How will the development of these stem cells prove beneficial to humankind? What are they?

According to the National Institute of Health, stem cells are "blank" cells that have the potential to develop into any type of cell in the body. These include nerve cells, heart cells, kidney cells and ocular (eye) cells. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive.

When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a red blood cell, a brain cell or even eye cells. If they could grow cardiac cells, for instance, scientists one day might be able to replace damaged heart tissue in someone who has had a heart attack.

Scientists work primarily with two kinds of stem cells, embryonic and adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos, as their name suggests. Specifically, they are derived from embryos developed from eggs - in an in vitro fertilization clinic - and then donated for research purposes with the informed consent of the donors.

Adult stem cells are undifferentiated, found among the differentiated cells in a tissue or organ. They renew themselves and can differentiate into the major specialized cell types. The primary roles of adult stem cells in a living organism are to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found.

Scientists try to harvest the cells before they have distinctiveness, and then coax them into becoming a certain type of cell. Because harvesting stem cells destroys the embryo, this medical research has become entangled in the abortion debate.

Scientists in Virginia recently sparked a furor by announcing they had created human embryos specifically for the purpose of extracting the stem cells. Until now, such research has been conducted on embryos left over from fertility treatments or from abortions. Creating embryos intended only for research raises new questions about the ethics of stem cell science.

Research opponents say it is wrong because it destroys human life. Supporters say the embryos were going to be destroyed anyway, and that research from their cells holds the potential to cure debilitating diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

Eleni Berger, in a July 18, 2001 online article, found a general consensus among researchers who have said the field is promising, though no cures have been developed from stem cell research. Some researchers are also looking into the possibility of using adult stem cells, such as those derived from bone marrow, as an alternative to embryonic cells. However, many researchers say adult cells are not as flexible as embryonic cells and so are less capable of growing into different kinds of tissue.

Currently, embryonic stem cell research in the United States is privately funded. The Clinton administration developed rules for funding stem cell research but they were never implemented by the Bush administration.

In June this year, Bush issued a second veto of a measure lifting his restrictions on human embryonic stem cell experiments. A June 21, 2007 article of The New York Times reported that Bush had said in 2000 he was against stem cell funding, but reconsidered the issue after taking office.

According to the same article, President Bush, in a brief ceremony in the East Room of the White House said, “Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical.”

Stem cell researchers and advocates for people who hope to benefit from the research say federal funding could speed the development of therapies, and keep the United States at the forefront of a medical field it pioneered.

Anti-abortion groups say destroying an embryo to get the stem cells is an unacceptable use of taxpayer dollars. This attitude is shared by conservative Missouri lawmakers here in Kansas City.

In the July 23, 2007 issue, the Washington Post said that eight months earlier, Missouri was about to become the national leader in stem cell research. Voters had amended the state's constitution to protect stem cell research (even the controversial form) using cells from human embryos.

The setbacks began when lawmakers stripped funding for some prominent life sciences projects, including a $150 million research center at the University of Missouri in Columbia. In June, the Stowers Institute for Medical Research here in Kansas City announced it would halt expansion because of controversy over this research.

In that same article, Senator Matt Bartle (R) had this to say, “I think stem cell research is extraordinarily promising and exciting and we ought to move forward on it. But Missouri does not need to clone human embryos in order to become a leader in life sciences.”

Connie Farrow, a spokeswoman for the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, which supports the measure said, “We’re not going to stand idly by and let a few minority groups take our state backward. Our stem cell amendment is a model for other states.“

The controversy over stem cells has flared the ethical and scientific sensibilities of all who have a vested interest in the research. Division over how to conduct that research has been deep and bitter. Who will win?

For more information refer to the following web pages:

www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/washington/21stem.html
www.stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics.html
www.washingtonpost.com

Copyright 2007 Metropolitan Community College