STEM CELLS: HAS SCIENCE GONE TOO FAR?
STEM CELLS: HAS SCIENCE GONE TOO FAR?
Advances in stem cell research have led some to predict
cures for a host of illnesses. But not everyone shares the excitement. Why is
there so much controversy surrounding stem cells?
“The stem cell debate has led scientists and nonscientists
alike to contemplate profound issues, such as who we are and makes us human
beings”
MEDICAL MARVEL, ETHICAL MINEFIELD
Kris has Type 1 diabetes. Her diseased
pancreas no longer produces insulin. Now imagine if Kris could go to a doctor
and have new cells, specially cultured in a laboratory, transplanted into her
body to replace damaged pancreatic cells.
As these new cells became
functional, Kris could gradually discontinue insulin therapy and return to
normal health. Until recent times potential cures would have sounded like
science fiction, but now some researchers believe that they are a possibility.
Why so? Because in 1998, scientists found a way to culture large numbers of
cells called HUMAN STEM CELLS.
These stem cells can grow to
become almost any of the over two hundred different types of cells found in the
human body, including pancreatic cells.
Dolly the sheep was the first
mammal cloned from an adult cell. Scientists implanted the nucleus of a cell
from the mammary gland of an adult sheep into an enucleated egg cell.
According to a report prepared by
the National Institutes of Health in the United States, stem cells may hold the
key to replacing cells lost in many devastating diseases. These include,
Parkinson’s disease, end-stage kidney disease, liver failure, and cancer, to
name just a few.
Stem cells can also give rise to blood, and
they may even make blood banks obsolete, it is claimed. In fact, doctors have
been using stem cells for many years to treat certain blood disorders.
These treatments have usually
involved transplantation of bone marrow, which is rich in blood-forming stem
cells, but now doctors prefers to harvest stem cells taken from circulating
blood. Because stem-cell therapies hold promise of regenerating healthy new
tissues, they come under the general designation “regenerative medicine.”
Certain aspects of this fledgling
science, however, are highly controversial. Many people, including a number of
scientists, feel that the exploitation of human stem cells –particularly those
derived from either embryos or fetuses –shows a disregard for the sanctity of
human life. The issue has become so hot, in fact, that is has been likened to
an ‘ethical and political minefield.’
Because stem cell advocates
predict miracle cures for a host of conditions, the following article takes a
closer look at the different kinds of stem cells, how they are derived, and why
the subject is so controversial.
WHY THE CONTROVERSY?
In the hands of a trained craftsman, a lump of
soft clay can be formed into practical any shape. Embryonic stem cells are the
living equivalent of that piece of moist clay; they have the prospective to
give rise to virtually all of the over 200 cell types making up the human body.
How do they do this? Consider what happens to a newly fertilized egg cell.
Soon after fertilization an egg cell begins to
divide. In humans about five days of cell division results in a minute ball of
cells called a BLASTOCYST. It is essentially a
hollow sphere that is composed of a shell-like outer cell layer and a small
cluster of about 30 cells called the inner cell mass, which is attached to the
inside wall of the sphere. The outer cell layer becomes the PLACENTA; the inner cell mass, the human embryo.
At the blastocyst stage, though, the cells of
the inner cell mass have not yet begun to specialize into specific cell types,
such as nerve, kidney, or muscle cells. Hence, they are designated stem cells.
And because they give rise to virtually all the different cell types in the
body, they are said to be PLURIPOTENT.
To make sense of the excitement and mystery surrounding stem cells, let us see
what the researchers have done thus far and what their goals are, beginning
with embryonic stem cells.
[1] EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS
The report Stem Cells and the Future of
Regenerative Medicine states: “In the last three years, it has become possible
to remove these [human embryonic] stem cells from the BLASTOCYST
and maintain them in an undifferentiated state in cell culture lines in the
laboratory.” Simply put, embryonic stem cells can be cultured so as to produce
an unlimited number of identical copies of themselves. Embryonic stem cells
extracted from mice, first cultured in 1981, have produced billions of
duplicate cells in the laboratory.
Because all these cells remain
undifferentiated, scientists hope that with the right biochemical triggers,
stem cells could be directed to develop into virtually all the cell kinds that
may be needed for tissue replacement therapy. Simply put, stem cells are seen
as a potential source of unlimited ‘spare parts,’
In two animal studies,
researchers coaxed embryonic stem cells into becoming insulin-producing cells,
which were then transplanted into diabetic mice. In one study the symptoms of
diabetes were reversed, but in the other the new cells failed to produce enough
insulin. In similar studies, scientists have had partial success in restoring
neural function in spinal cord injuries and
in correcting Parkinson’s disease symptoms. Those
studies provide promise but not definitive evidence, that similar treatment
could be effective in humans.” But why is research on human embryonic stem
cells so controversial?
WHY
THE CONCERN?
The main focus of concern is that
the process of extracting embryonic stem cells essentially destroys the embryo.
This deprives a human embryo of any further potential to develop into a
complete human being.
For those who believe that the life of a human
being begins at the moment of conception, ESC
[embryonic stem cell] research violates tenets that prohibit the destruction of
human life and the treatment of human life as a means to some other end, no
matter how noble that end might be.
Where do laboratories get the
embryo from which stem cells are extracted? Generally from in vitro fertilization clinics, where women have provided
eggs for in vitro fertilization. Leftover embryos are usually either frozen or
discarded. One clinic in India discards over 1,000 human embryos each year.
While research on embryonic stem
cells continues, some investigators are focusing their efforts on a much less
controversial form of stem cell –the ADULT STEM CELL.
[2] ADULT STEM CELLS
The adult stem cells is an undifferentiated [specialized]
tissue, such as bone marrow, blood and
blood vessels, the
skin, the spinal cord, the liver, the
gastrointestinal tract, and the pancreas.
Initial research suggested that adult stem cells were much more limited in
scope than their embryonic counterparts. However, later findings in animal
studies suggest that certain kinds of adult stem cells may be able to differentiate
into tissues other than those which they came.
Adult stem cells isolated from blood and bone
marrow, called HEMATOPOIETIC STEM CELLS [HSCs],
have the ability to self-renew continuously in the marrow and to differentiate
into the full complement of cell types found in blood.
This type of stem cell has already been used
to treat leukemia and a number of other blood disorders. Now some scientists
also claim that HSCs appear to give rise to nonblood cells such as liver cells
and cells that resemble neurons and other cell types found in the brain.
Using another type of stem cell
derived from the bone marrow of mice, researchers in the United States appear
to have made another break through. Their study, published in the journal
Nature, showed that these cells seem to have all the versatility of embryonic
stem cells.
In principle these adult stem cells could do
everything expected of embryonic stem cells but these cells are rare and
difficult to identify. On the other hand, any medical benefits they may yield
will not involve the destruction of human embryos.
[3]
EMBRYONIC GERM CELLS
Besides adult and embryonic stem
cells, embryonic germ cells have also been isolated. Embryonic germ cells are
derived from the cells in the GONADAL ridge of
an embryo or a fetus, which give rise to eggs or sperm. [The gonadal ridge
becomes the ovaries or testes.] Although embryonic germ cells are different in
many ways from embryonic stem cells, both are pluripotent, or able to give rise
to virtually all cell types.
This potential makes pluripotent
cells very attractive candidates for the development of unprecedented medical
treatments. However, the excitement over such potential therapies is tempered
by the controversy centering on the source of these cells. They are derived
either from aborted fetuses or from embryos. Thus, obtaining these cells
involves fetal and embryo destruction.
HEALTH RISKS AND REGENERATIVE MEDICINE
Whatever
form of stem cell is used, therapies will still have serious drawbacks –even if
scientists master the processes that yield tissues for transplantation.
One of the major obstacles is the
rejection of foreign tissue by the recipient’s immune system. The present
solution is to administer potent drugs that suppress the immune system, but
such drugs carry serious side effects. Genetic engineering may avoid this
problem if stem cells can be altered so that tissues derived from them do not
appear foreign to their new host.
Another possibility might be to
use stem cells taken from the patient’s own tissues. In early clinical trials,
hematopoietic stem cells have already been used in this way to treat LUPUS.
Diabetes may yield to similar therapies, as long as the new tissue is not
susceptible to the same autoimmune attack that may have caused the disease in
the first place.
People with certain heart
diseases may also benefit from stem cell therapies. One proposal is that
at-risk patients donate their own stem cells in advance so that these could be
cultured and later used to replace diseased cardiac tissue.
In wrestling with the problem of
immune rejection, some scientists have even proposed cloning patients but
allowing the clones to develop only to the BLASTOCYST stage, when embryonic
stem cells can be harvested. Tissues cultured from these stem cells would be
genetically identical to the donor-recipient. But besides being morally
repugnant to many people, such cloning may be futile if the intent is to cure a
genetically based disease.
Summing up the immune problem,
the National Academy of Science stated: “An understanding of how to prevent
rejection of transplanted cells is fundamental to their becoming useful for
regenerative medicine and represents one of the greatest challenges for
research in this field.”
Embryonic stem cell
transplantation also carries the risk of tumor formation, in particular a tumor
called a teratoma, meaning ‘monster tumor.’ This growth may comprise a variety
of tissues, such as skin, hair, muscle, cartilage, and bone.
During normal growth, cell
division and specialization follow a strict genetic program. But these
processes can run awry when stem cells are severed from the blastocyst, cultured
in viro, and later injected into a living creature. Learning to master
artificially the enormously complex processes of cell division and
specialization is yet another major hurdle facing researchers.
NO IMMINENT
CURES
The report Stem Cells and the
Future of Regenerative Medicine states: “Because of a misunderstanding of the
state of knowledge, there may be an unwarranted impression that widespread
clinical application of new therapies is certain and imminent. In fact, stem
cell research is in its infancy, and there are substantial gaps in knowledge
that pose obstacles to the realization of new therapies from either adult or
embryo-derived stem cells.” Clearly, there are more questions than answers.
Some scientists are even “bracing
themselves for a backlash when treatments fail to materialize, says a New York
Times report. Stem cell science aside, medicine has made great strides in many
areas in recent decades. Yet, as we have seen, some of these advances raise
complex moral and ethical questions.
So where can we turn for sound
guidance on such matters? What is more, as research becomes more sophisticated
and expensive, therapies and medications often reflect that cost. Some researchers
have already estimated that stem cells therapies may cost hundreds of thousands
of dollars per patient.
Yet, even now millions of people
are unable to keep up with escalating medical costs and insurance premiums. So
who really will benefit if and when the stem cell revolution arrives at the
clinic? Only time will tell. What we can be sure of, however, is that no
therapy conceived by man will eliminate sickness and death.
HOW A CLONE CAN BE MADE
In recent years scientists have
cloned a variety of animals. In 2001 a laboratory in the United States even
attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to clone a human. One way that scientists
make clones is through a process called NUCLEAR TRANSFER.
First, they extract an
unfertilized egg cell from a female and enucleate the cell, or remove its
nucleus, which contains the DNA. From the body
of the animal to be cloned, they obtain a suitable cell, such as a skin cell,
the nucleus of which contains its owner’s genetic blueprint. They insert this
cell [or just its nucleus] into the enucleated egg and pass an electric through
it. This fuses the cell with egg cytoplasm. With its new nucleus, the egg now
divides and grows as if it were fertilized, and a clone of the creature from
which the body cell was taken begins to develop.
The embryo can then be implanted
in the womb of a surrogate mother, where, in the rare instance all goes well.
It will grow to term. Alternatively, the embryo may be kept only until the
inner cell mass can be used to obtain embryonic stem cells that can be kept in
culture. Scientists believe that this basic process should work with humans. In
fact, the above-mentioned attempt to clone as human was performed with a view to
acquiring embryonic stem cells. Cloning for this purpose is called THERAPEUTIC CLONING.
The stem cell debate had led
scientists and nonscientists alike to contemplate profound issues, such as who
we are and what makes us human beings.
THE DISEASE WE DO NOT
HAVE TO HAVE
Osteoporosis is the disease we do not have to
have. It is largely preventable. Yet it is predicted that by 2020, one in three
hospital beds will be occupied by women with fractures. A report by
Osteoporosis Australia shows that the disease, which makes bones porous and
brittle, is more prevalent than high cholesterol, allergies or the common cold.
It costs more than diabetes or asthma. And the
death rate in women from hip fractures is greater than the incidence of all
female cancers combined. Estimates show that in Australia half the women and a
third of the men will sustain a fracture from osteoporosis during their
lifetime. The best defense is to build peak bone mass in the first three
decades of life through exercise and adequate calcium intake.
The risk of suffering from osteoporosis can be
greatly reduced by avoiding smoking and excessive alcohol or caffeine
consumption. Positive habits include engaging in regular exercise and consuming
foods rich in calcium and vitamin D.
Comments
Post a Comment