Embryonic stem cells: what’s the big deal?

So, what's so special about embryonic stem cells? Here's how President Obama described them in the speech we looked at in a previous post:
At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions: to regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair; to spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles; to treat Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them.
It's good that the president wishes to avoid overstating the "promise of stem cell research," but it's hard not to be impressed by that list of maladies. It looks like the kind of list you see in an advertisement for organic bovine fecal extract (or similar remedies). How did stems cells, and specifically embryonic stem cells, get this reputation?

Embryonic stem cell (ES cells) have two distinguishing properties. First and most notably, they have unlimited developmental potential. In other words, an embryonic stem cell is capable of developing into any cell type: nerve cell, muscle cell, skin cell, blood cell. Unlike every other known cell type, and unlike so-called adult stem cells, an ES cell hasn't burned any bridges by becoming committed to a particular lineage of descendants. The stem cells in the bone marrow, for example, are adult stem cells which are quite useful for making new blood cells but are unable to make muscle cells by virtue of their commitment to the blood-cell lineage. The bone marrow stem cells can make several different types of cells, so they are referred to as multipotent. The ES cells, lacking any constraint on their developmental trajectory, are called pluripotent. It is their pluripotency that makes them so interesting and so potentially useful.

The second property is self-renewal. A stem cell, by definition, has the capacity to regenerate itself every time it divides. So when a stem cell divides, it makes two distinct cells: one is a cell that can go on to develop into a particular cell type (nerve, muscle, skin, blood) and the other is a cell that retains the properties of the original stem cell. This is important, because when cells make their final developmental decision they often forfeit their ability to divide anymore. If stem cells merely turned into such cells, the body would quickly run out of stem cells. Now, note that this second property is not specific to ES cells: all stem cells of every kind have the property of self-renewal. That's what makes them stem cells.

Putting these two properties together, we see that ES cells are cells that can self-renew continuously, so that a small population (in a culture dish) can quickly be expanded into a very large population which can be easily subdivided and shared with multiple labs and/or frozen for future use. And these cells can be coaxed into becoming any cell type. Add a little of this and a little of that, and you can get ES cells to turn into dopaminergic neurons, which are the very cells that are destroyed in Parkinson's disease. Skin cells? Done. Heart muscle cells? Done. Sperm? Eggs? Believe it or not, yes, that's been done. (Think about that one. We'll come back to it in the future.)

And that means that ES cells represent a practically unlimited source of human cells of every type. This is why the cells are thought to have the potential to help us understand and address maladies of the kind the president listed: they provide an opportunity to study the ins and outs of development, but much more importantly they provide an opportunity to create the cells and tissues that can be used to fix damaged bodies.

The potential is real. It shouldn't be overstated, but it's real. And yet we all know why the creation of ES cells is profoundly controversial. It seems to me that this is a serious ethical conflict, a real problem. Defining it as a "false choice" – as the president unwisely did in his speech – doesn't solve the problem. Is there another way?

Login to comment

IMPORTANT Did you have an account on the old ThinkChristian.net site? Click here transition your account. This will sync all your comments with your email address.

Comments (5)

I completely recognize the potential of ESC research and I respect the pro-ESC research position. However, the pro/anti ESC arguments (like so many) have become completely polarized.

Can we work together on fleshing out and learning more about the spectrum of choices between adult stem cells and ESCs? For instance, right now, cord-blood-derived embryonic-like stem cells provide almost as much developmental potential as ESCs. And there are millions of umbilical cords just thrown out every year.

While we come together and discuss the ethical implications of ESC research, can we not also come together on promoting research on alternative sources of embryonic-like stem cells?
Thanks for the dispassionate and clear explanation of the unique nature (and potential) of the ESC. This is the first time I've seen/heard this, and it promotes a sympathetic position toward those advocating it.

If only people would be as sympathetic to the issue of sanctity of innocent human life. Yes, the public debate is polarized, but for some of us it's hard to see how "compromise" can take place on this issue, especially given the reality of the "slippery slope."

Meanwhile, rally makes a great point. I'm not aware of anyone protesting against harvesting cord cells or anything other than destroying embryos. Perhaps part of the "polarization" problem comes from the majority of media reports only referring to "stem cell research" without defining the difference.
The solution is placenta and adult stem cells. They're just as effective and don't destroy life:

http://www.jameswatkins.com/st...
Any line of research, development, and treatment, which produces the same results as embryonic stem cells, without posing any of the moral dilemmas currently being debated, would be preferable. Not only does it offer a sound basis for mutual respect among people with differing beliefs, it makes practical use possible, without having to resolve the moral arguments. It would be simple common sense. It would be the most pragmatic solution. The sticking point is that many preferable sources of pluripotent stem cells "may" offer the same results.

I love Jim's column, which is probably where I found my first link to thinkchristian, but I frankly do not believe that a zygote, or a blastocyst, or an embryo, is a human being. A zygote has exactly the same genetic content as any cell, in the body it may become, would have. Every cell is "life." There are elements of consciousness, ability to live and grow outside the womb, and the unknown question of when the physical body becomes the host for a "living soul," which make the difference between mere organic life, potentially human, and a human being. I would not close off any line of research until we know we have a widely accepted means of treating, e.g., diabetes, pancreatic cancer, Alzheimer's disease, etc. Then the are the more limited moral questions of harvesting placentas for research.
rally and dons, you're anticipating the direction I'm going in the series. Cord blood is just one ethically uncomplicated source of multipotent stem cells, and there might be good scientific/therapeutic reasons for preferring such approaches. (You might want to check out an interesting overview in the New York Times written by Nicholas Wade shortly after President Obama's new order.) So yes, let's work together to lay out the "spectrum of choices." It's more complicated (and interesting) than Mr. Watkins suggests, as you might have guessed if you looked at his sources.

See the latest in:

Promotion

promo 1 promo 2
promo 3 promo 4

Donate Now