Print
E-mail
Scientific Community Differs About Stem Cells
Debate Misrepresented By The National Media
By Michael P. Tremoglie, The Bulletin
The debate about stem cell research has been cast as a dichotomy between religion and science. But many in the scientific community object to this dualistic characterization and the stereotyping of those who oppose the use of embryonic stem cells as fanatics or Neanderthals.
The issue’s treatment by most national media has been that the scientific community praises President Barack Obama’s decision, while the religious community condemns it. This is simply not true. Many scientists, experts in the life sciences field, profoundly disagree with the president and his allies in this.
Dr. David Prentice, Ph.D., is a senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council. For almost 20 years, he was a professor of life sciences at Indiana State University and an adjunct professor of medical and molecular genetics at the Indiana University School of Medicine.
He says scientists are not in complete agreement about this issue. The science has been politicized by those who favor embryonic stem cell research, he told The Bulletin, and recent scientific advances have changed the environment.
“Despite all the rhetoric that we still need embryos, a lot of embryonic stem cell labs are switching over to the induced pluripotent stem cell technology,” he said. “To put it simply, induced pluripotent stem cell is where a scientist takes a skin cell add a few genes and reprograms the cell to look and act just like an embryonic stem cells without embryos.”
Stem cells from embryos are actually becoming obsolete. Induced pluripotent stem cell technology was labeled the scientific breakthrough of the year for 2008 by the journal Science, he said.
Another researcher in stem cells, who talked on the condition of anonymity, said that the president “sidestepped” the ethical issue. A self-identified Obama supporter and liberal, he felt that that the president “missed an opportunity” to address the controversy.
“Sidestepping the issue” was a phrase also used by Professor Maureen Condic. She is an associate professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah. She received her Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley and conducts research on the development and regeneration of the nervous system. She said President Obama “punted” the issue.
“Science is amoral. What the president is doing is to allow scientists to completely make the decision and sidestepping the ethics,” she said. “No one can possibly pretend there is not an ethical component to this question.”
Prof. Condic went on to say that the issue of human embryonic stem cell research is no less deserving of ethical considerations than the ethical standards that are used for the welfare of animals in medical research.
“Simply deferring to the scientists is not appropriate,” she said. “This is an area of research that should be left to society, the same way we made decisions about worker’s rights and animal welfare. Ethical questions cannot be deferred to science. Science does not address the domain of ethics. There is no scientific test to prove the hypothesis.”
Another scientist who believes embryonic stem cells are not the sole answer is Keith March, M.D., PhD. He is a professor of medicine at Indiana University’s Department of Medicine and the director of the Indiana Center for Vascular Biology and Medicine. A researcher in adult stem cells, he thinks that science is not of one voice.
“I do not think all scientists will say that human embryonic stem cells are the way to go,” he said. “Adult stem cells are pragmatically useful because they contribute to tissue repair. So there is a very great interest moving preclinical and clinical research forward.”
Other scientists, who would not speak on the record, said that the science involving stem cells has become polarized and that those who do not agree that using embryonic stem cells are being denied promotions and grants in academia. In some cases, they are denounced as religious fanatics.
Ironically, the religious leaders that have condemned embryonic stem cell research have done so by citing politics as the motivation.
Monsignor Rino Fisichella, director of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life said, on March 10, that Mr. Obama’s executive order was a “victory of politics over ethics” and that “probably some drug companies or some economic interests” influenced the decision to reverse the restrictions on funding imposed by the Bush administration.
Philadelphia’s Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, also said that Mr. Obama’s decision was choosing politics over science.
The fact is that some — not all — scientists want to use embryonic stem cells. Former President George W. Bush was the first to allow scientists to study human embryonic stem cells with federal funds. He limited federal funding to cell lines that had already been created using human embryos by August 2001, when his policy went into effect.
Mr. Obama’s executive order removes that restriction, making hundreds of newer human embryo lines eligible for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. But it is important to note that Mr. Obama’s removal of the ban concerns only the funding of research from embryonic stem cells that are created via private funding. Public funding for creating embryonic stem cells is still banned. Any change of this would require congressional action.
Understandably, the public is just as divided over the issue as scientists are.
A Rasmussen poll taken immediate following President Obama’s decision indicates that almost as many Americans oppose it as are in favor of it.
52 percent of U.S. voters agree with President Obama’s decision to lift the ban. 38 percent oppose Obama’s decision. Ten percent of voters are not sure which course is better to follow.
The stem cell research issue is a difficult one. People of good conscience differ about whether it should be permitted or not and how it should proceed. But the comment made by Mr. Obama that he was ending “a false choice between sound science and moral values” is in itself false.
The mischaracterization of the stem cell debate as being between superstitious benighted religious people opposing research and enlightened secularists favoring research is the triumph of propaganda over hard journalism.
After all, Dr. James Thomson, the original discoverer of embryonic stem cells — and co-discoverer, along with Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, of the induced pluripotent breakthrough — told the New York Times, “If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.”
Michael P. Tremoglie can be contacted at mtremoglie@thebulletin.us
The issue’s treatment by most national media has been that the scientific community praises President Barack Obama’s decision, while the religious community condemns it. This is simply not true. Many scientists, experts in the life sciences field, profoundly disagree with the president and his allies in this.
Dr. David Prentice, Ph.D., is a senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council. For almost 20 years, he was a professor of life sciences at Indiana State University and an adjunct professor of medical and molecular genetics at the Indiana University School of Medicine.
He says scientists are not in complete agreement about this issue. The science has been politicized by those who favor embryonic stem cell research, he told The Bulletin, and recent scientific advances have changed the environment.
“Despite all the rhetoric that we still need embryos, a lot of embryonic stem cell labs are switching over to the induced pluripotent stem cell technology,” he said. “To put it simply, induced pluripotent stem cell is where a scientist takes a skin cell add a few genes and reprograms the cell to look and act just like an embryonic stem cells without embryos.”
Stem cells from embryos are actually becoming obsolete. Induced pluripotent stem cell technology was labeled the scientific breakthrough of the year for 2008 by the journal Science, he said.
Another researcher in stem cells, who talked on the condition of anonymity, said that the president “sidestepped” the ethical issue. A self-identified Obama supporter and liberal, he felt that that the president “missed an opportunity” to address the controversy.
“Sidestepping the issue” was a phrase also used by Professor Maureen Condic. She is an associate professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah. She received her Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley and conducts research on the development and regeneration of the nervous system. She said President Obama “punted” the issue.
“Science is amoral. What the president is doing is to allow scientists to completely make the decision and sidestepping the ethics,” she said. “No one can possibly pretend there is not an ethical component to this question.”
Prof. Condic went on to say that the issue of human embryonic stem cell research is no less deserving of ethical considerations than the ethical standards that are used for the welfare of animals in medical research.
“Simply deferring to the scientists is not appropriate,” she said. “This is an area of research that should be left to society, the same way we made decisions about worker’s rights and animal welfare. Ethical questions cannot be deferred to science. Science does not address the domain of ethics. There is no scientific test to prove the hypothesis.”
Another scientist who believes embryonic stem cells are not the sole answer is Keith March, M.D., PhD. He is a professor of medicine at Indiana University’s Department of Medicine and the director of the Indiana Center for Vascular Biology and Medicine. A researcher in adult stem cells, he thinks that science is not of one voice.
“I do not think all scientists will say that human embryonic stem cells are the way to go,” he said. “Adult stem cells are pragmatically useful because they contribute to tissue repair. So there is a very great interest moving preclinical and clinical research forward.”
Other scientists, who would not speak on the record, said that the science involving stem cells has become polarized and that those who do not agree that using embryonic stem cells are being denied promotions and grants in academia. In some cases, they are denounced as religious fanatics.
Ironically, the religious leaders that have condemned embryonic stem cell research have done so by citing politics as the motivation.
Monsignor Rino Fisichella, director of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life said, on March 10, that Mr. Obama’s executive order was a “victory of politics over ethics” and that “probably some drug companies or some economic interests” influenced the decision to reverse the restrictions on funding imposed by the Bush administration.
Philadelphia’s Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, also said that Mr. Obama’s decision was choosing politics over science.
The fact is that some — not all — scientists want to use embryonic stem cells. Former President George W. Bush was the first to allow scientists to study human embryonic stem cells with federal funds. He limited federal funding to cell lines that had already been created using human embryos by August 2001, when his policy went into effect.
Mr. Obama’s executive order removes that restriction, making hundreds of newer human embryo lines eligible for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. But it is important to note that Mr. Obama’s removal of the ban concerns only the funding of research from embryonic stem cells that are created via private funding. Public funding for creating embryonic stem cells is still banned. Any change of this would require congressional action.
Understandably, the public is just as divided over the issue as scientists are.
A Rasmussen poll taken immediate following President Obama’s decision indicates that almost as many Americans oppose it as are in favor of it.
52 percent of U.S. voters agree with President Obama’s decision to lift the ban. 38 percent oppose Obama’s decision. Ten percent of voters are not sure which course is better to follow.
The stem cell research issue is a difficult one. People of good conscience differ about whether it should be permitted or not and how it should proceed. But the comment made by Mr. Obama that he was ending “a false choice between sound science and moral values” is in itself false.
The mischaracterization of the stem cell debate as being between superstitious benighted religious people opposing research and enlightened secularists favoring research is the triumph of propaganda over hard journalism.
After all, Dr. James Thomson, the original discoverer of embryonic stem cells — and co-discoverer, along with Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, of the induced pluripotent breakthrough — told the New York Times, “If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.”
Michael P. Tremoglie can be contacted at mtremoglie@thebulletin.us
 |
 |
|
| Poll: Obama's Negatives Are On The Rise | Experts Reflect On Three Mile Island, Nuclear Power |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
