In recent months, the American public has been bombarded
with reports of prominent stem cell scientists attempting to run
end-around plays against current US government policies that
restrict research that requires the destruction of human embryos.
These scientists, now run amuck, have derived human embryonic
stem cells (hESCs) with nonfederal funding, have announced plans
to establish privately funded centers for hESC
research, and have been removed from the
President's Council on Bioethics after attempting to defame the
character of other council members who did not share their views.As a rule, reports on the controversy around hESC research, since
the President announced his administration's policy for
restricting the number of approved cell lines in 2001, have only
listed nonscientists as critics. The public has been told about
the objections of politicians, religious groups, and antiabortion
activists, but not those of other stem cell scientists. This
situation reflects the homogenization of scientists' views into
the political rhetoric of their professional organizations.The leadership of scientific organizations often errs by
presuming that all of their membership think like them, and
dissenting opinions are not represented when they politicize
their messages to Congress. Although they may hold open forums
on this topic at their national meetings, formal polling of their
memberships on important science-society topics is largely
unheard of. Too often, leading scientists get confused about the
difference between defending the free pursuit of science (our
livelihood) and serving the public good, which is a
responsibility owed for the use of public resources to support
our research. When our leaders ignore or fail to acknowledge
this responsibility, they destine future scientists to the
fallout of public mistrust.The public needs to know that many expert stem cell biologists
are also against research that results in human deaths. We are
quite disheartened and disappointed by the attitudes and tactics
of our colleagues and mentors who behave as if they were above
the democratic process. Do they fail to realize that their
so-called private funds are gains from the use of public
infrastructure and services and from the work, effort, energy,
creativity, and sacrifice of Americans in all walks of life?
Though they do not recognize this, be assured, the public does.Like others who are against research that destroys human life,
scientists who oppose hESC research are also compelled by the
moral conviction that human life must be safeguarded. In
addition, some of them recognize that, actually, hESC research
cannot be justified on scientific grounds. Effective,
long-lasting cell therapy requires adult stem cells. In the
body, natural organ and tissue cells undergo a continuous
progression from birth, to maturation, to function, and finally
to death. Adult stem cells are responsible for the continuous
production of new cells to replace ones that have expired.
Without adult stem cells, organs and tissues cannot maintain
themselves.In order for promised hESC-based therapies to be successful,
first hESCs must be converted into adult stem cells. Thus far,
no one has shown this to be possible. The focus of ESC therapy
research has been on making mature differentiated cells instead
of their adult stem cell parents. Even if adult stem cells were
successfully produced from destroyed human embryos, for effective
cell therapies, they must then be stabilized and grown to a
sufficient number for treatment. Producing adult stem cells in
large numbers while stabilizing their restorative tissue function
is a singular challenge in stem cell biology, though some recent
progress has been made.So, why destroy human life (or, for the less certain, risk
destroying it) when the essential barrier to effective cell
therapies is the need for more research to understand adult stem
cells? Adult stem cells can be obtained from informed consenting
adults, and they already have examples of successful cell
therapies. Bone marrow transplantation is one example of a
currently available adult stem cell therapy. Of course, there is
still research needed to increase the effectiveness of existing
therapies and to develop new ones for chronic debilitating
diseases like diabetes and Parkinson's.Scientists who advocate for research that destroys human embryos
are ignorant of the adult stem cell requirement, ignoring it, or
hiding it from the public and prospective benefactors. One can
only speculate on what motivates our colleagues to do this. I am
confident that some have a sincere, though misguided, aspiration
to help people suffering from dreaded illnesses. But even this
well-intended motivation cannot justify dismissing sound
scientific reason.Scientists promoting hESC research must take care that they do
not take advantage of the hopes and fears of people who yearn so
desperately for cures that they will regretfully overlook their
own moral objections. They do so because they are told that the
science is sound and the research will be effective and
expedient. The public and potential benefactors must be told
that not only is hESC research an eviction of moral
thought, it is also a failing of scientific reason.All the fuss over hESCs has served to reduce funding for all
types of stem cell research. The momentum of new growth in
knowledge of adult stem cells and their potential for therapeutic
application has been very nearly lost due to poor funding as a
result of the senseless moral fallout over hESCs. Scientists who
aim to bulldoze over the public debate are hurting
everyone. It is distressing to hear them give such incomplete
accountings of the scientific challenges before promised
hESC-based therapies and to ignore the adult stem cell bottleneck
altogether. If these problems were discussed more openly, they
alone would suffice as the basis for banning any experimentation
that requires destruction of human embryos, public or “private.”