The big news in the medical world this week is a report announcing the isolation of stem cells from amniotic fluid. Why is this important? Well, the major ethical concern regarding stem cell research so far (and the reason Federal funding is severely restricted) is that these cells are generated from embryos ‘left-over” from in vitro fertilisation. Should we create life and then destroy it to possibly prolong life down the line? The government says no, or at least they cannot financially support that effort. The prevailing conclusion drawn by the scientific community has been “Bush hates progress” and “Bush hates science”. Well, as a refreshing article in the Daily Telegraph puts it:
“Many people, including US president George W. Bush, have opposed the destruction of embryos for scientific research, and Mr Bush’s administration has drastically restricted funding for embryo research since 2001, leading scientists to search for alternative sources of stem cells”.
Yes, sometimes restrictions in one direction can promote progress in another. Scientists have found that amniotic fluid, the fluid surrounding the baby during pregnancy, contains stem cells. Even better, this fluid is withdrawn routinely by amniocentesis to check the health of the baby before delivery and the extra fluid that’s not used for testing is normally thrown away. If it’s kept to collect stem cells, there’s no harm done to the baby, avoiding the ethical problem associated with destroying embryos. Since the amniotic cells are genetically matched to the baby, they can even be stored and used to treat the child if it is unfortunate enough to develop a genetic illness in later life.
The media has been pretty keen to report this breakthrough. Any advance in medical science with the potential to treat things like Parkinson’s disease and Altzeimers has to be exciting, right? Strangely enough, the stem cell scientists I’ve spoken to are very guarded about this new development. The official reason for withholding their applause is that they are sceptical that cells from amniotic fluid are really as useful as embryonic cells (i.e can they be manipulated as easily and form blood cells, liver cells, bone cells, etc?). Some of this is valid-the work is preliminary and there are certainly more questions to be answered about what the new cells can do. But there’s also the question of time and money. Yes, Federal funding for amniotic fluid-derived stem cells (AFS) is unlikely to be restricted in the way that embryonic stem cell research is. But any potential opening of the funding flood-gates is offset by the time and money already invested in embryonic stem cells. It’s not straightforward (practically or emotionally) for scientists to drop one experimental system and all the information that’s been collected and switch to another.
I suspect that man-on-the-street doesn’t care. Man-on-the-street just wants scientists to get on with their experiments and develop stem cell therapies ASAP. Let’s just hope that the stem cell scientists don’t restrict their own progress by their reluctance to move on.
Philomena
As I recall, embryonic stem cells still have not given us any cures for diseases (compared to something like 40 conditions that have been treated with adult stem cells). Which makes me wonder why scientists are fixated on embryonic stem cells, and not the ones that have been working. It almost sounds like scientists have already restricted their progress out of spite for Bush's approach to the situation.
First Things has an article on the current state of embryonic stem cell research. To summarize:
Tim
Posted by: Tim | January 12, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Tim,
Another area that scientists seem out in front of science--and I think you are right, there is a political rather than intellectual bias happening--is on global warming.
It may or may not be happening. I don't know, and I don't think there is definitive proof on the matter one way or another. There is evidence, yes. But I don't know that it has gone to a higher level, scientifically.
Michael Crichton makes this point very well, and he's not some political hack as far as I know, in this essay:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
Posted by: Thomas More | January 12, 2007 at 11:31 AM