What the Hell is Stem Cell Research?
Ever since I first started writing for debate, all I’ve been getting from students is “Please please write an article on stem cell research” and “Jared, focus your attention on a socially relevant bioethical issue!” Well debaters, the wait is over and the time is here. This, my friends, is the best damn ‘Beginners Guide to Stem Cell Research’ you’re ever going to read, so tuck in your smarty pants and pull up your socks, this ones gettin’ nerdy.
In case you skipped high school, humans (along with all living things)
are made out of cells. We’re made out of about 100 trillion of them,
and some of them are magic. The magic ones are called STEM CELLS! Stem
cells are special because they can split into two and become different
cells. For example, when you were just a tiny embryo, stem cells split
up and multiplied and made your arms, and your legs, and your tail.
There are more than 220 different cell types, which fall into three
different layers and ALL of these cells can be formed from a stem cell.
So in short, stem cells make everything (brain included) when you’re
just a little womb pirate, and when you’re big, they just fix you up
and give you breasts and testicles and things like that.
The idea of stem cells first arose in the early ‘60s, but the
concept was ignored and it wasn’t until the mid ‘60s that anyone took
any notice, things started to happen and people started to talk until
Gail Martin coined the term “embryonic stem cell” in the early ‘80s.
Research has come along in leaps and bounds since then, and the focus
has shifted from discovery to utilisation, more specifically, how we
can take advantage of another of mother natures’ amazing creations. The
answer lies in cell generation. To be shamelessly basic about the whole
ordeal, (this process is a bit too in-depth for us common folk) we can
tell cells what we want them to be (repair, growth etc), and
essentially create something out of nothing. What are the advantages of
this you ask?
Stem cells are a target for genetic changes; these changes can
fiddle with the cells and give us cancer. Stem cell research raises the
possibility of understanding and modifying these cells to give us
healthy ones, effectively (I don’t want to say it) curing cancer. Also,
based on the fact that cells can be reprogrammed, there is potential
for cell regeneration – meaning amputees could re–grow legs or arms and
we could even re–grow facial tissue. That’s a heavy burden to bear for
biologists and unfortunately the current level of research means that
we are not able to do these things, but keep an eye out over the next
decade or five.
The stink thing about science is often when a new idea is thought
up, there are a number of differing viewpoints that create an ethical
dilemma which jeopardises the continued funding and subsequent
research. Stem cell research unfortunately follows the trend. The issue
raised here is that with this technology comes an exciting and
ethically challenging concept – cloning. The nature of this science
means that it is possible to get genetic material from one cell and
generate more of them somewhere else, technically recreating a human.
As cool as that may be, the ethical issues surrounding cloning are
numerous and extremely controversial.
One of the key contributing factors to the morality argument
surrounding stem cell science was that until January of this year, it
was impossible to regenerate any cells without the use (and subsequent
destruction) of a live human embryo. This means that embryos had to be
created (or obtained from un-needed IVF treatment (where embryo’s are
created outside of the womb for couples who can’t get pregnant)) and
then used solely for the purpose of scientific experiment. Since the
beginning of this year, however, it is possible to use a human embryo
to transplant DNA into a stem cell, and keep the embryo alive. With
this massive break-through a huge portion of anti-stem cell lobbyists’
arguments became redundant. There are still, however, a large number of
people who protest to the research because of the argument that before
long this science will diversify into complete cloning, and argue that
cloning is amoral and should be avoided at all costs.
You decide*. At the end of the day, we have to weigh up whether
potentially saving hundreds of thousands, even millions of lives in
cancer (and other illness) related medical problems is worth a possible
decline into a society of designer babies and perfect teeth and 1200
year old beauty queens. Admittedly I may be being slightly over the
top, but being as I just found out that I can finally fix the kink in
my nose and my funny second toe, you can forgive me for being a bit
excited.
* Your decision doesn’t mean anything.