Expert: Paul Edward Zukowski - 3/3/2005

Question
Hello Paul,
My name is Emily and I am a college student at the University of Central Arkansas.  I have recently been learning a great deal on stem cells and the research that has been so hotly debated, and I am confused on exactly why anyone would be against such a promising cure to so many of the terrible diseases.  
Throughout my research, I have found many pro-reseach reasons to persue stem cell advancement, but the only logical anti-stem cell argument that I have found is that life begins at moment of conception (and that clones are going to take over the world!). If you agree with these people, I completely respect that, but that is an opinion that not all of us share, and is not an argument to deny a country from being able to do what others in the world are doing at this moment. I have a few issues that I would like to address about other aspects.
First and foremost, stem cell research will be able cure Alzheimer's disease (European countries like Sweden are doing it in rats at this very moment).  Over twenty million people have been estimated to have this disease in the United States alone, and if you hav ever had a friend of family member with this terrible disease,Paul, I know that you understand the torment that the families of these people go through.
Why would you not encourage research to cure this epidemic?  Before you answer that, let me tell you some things that you might not be aware of.  First, it is a common misconception that scientists want to pay women for aborted fetuses at abortion clinics.  THIS IS NOT TRUE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. At the time of abortion, the cells of the young fetuses have already separated into specialized cells.  This means that they are not stem cells anymore.  Scientists are actually wanting to get stem cells from fertility clinics.  
Because it may take a couple several attempts to become pregnant at a fertility clinic, doctors there will remove several aggs and sperm from the couple.  They then fertilize all of the eggs and immediatly (within 24 hours) freeze these cells (known as blastocysts).  These blastocysts, containing about 30 to 40 unspecialized cells, would not have even implanted into the womb of the mother at this time if it were a natural conception.  The fertility clinic then attempts to impregnate the mother with these blastocysts, taking them out of the freezer and thawing them as needed.  Once the couple has become pregnant, however, the remainder of these blastocysts are thrown away (Yes! Into the trash can!)  My question to you is why can scientists not use these blastocyts that are thrown away everyday for someting that can save millions of people's lives.  They are only 30 cells; they have no brain cells, no organ cells, no nerve cells, only cells that will one day become those things.
When President Bush made the decision to so severly limit our study of these cells, he claimed that there were 78 lines of cells that scientists could use to research.  
Why is it okay to research these lines and not others?
As it turns out (due to political misunderstandings) there were only about 12 lines available for study, and as of last month, all of these lines were declared contaminated (because they are kept alive on rat cells, and after time the human cells will pick up proteins from these cells and turn into rat/human hybrid cells, making them unusable).  This means that as of last month, the USA has been forced to completely halt any valid reseach on stem cells, while the rest of the world is merely years away from beginning to cure the most terrible diseases on the planet (Including Alzheimer's, Huntington's, Parkinson's, and mental illnesses like depression and schitzophrenia).
Why is this happening?  Why are we forced to throw away what could be saving lives?  Why is it okay sometimes (like at the clinics, and the "morning after" pill), but so highly opposed to by some people. No respectable scientist would ever want to use these cells to clone a human because it would involve so many failures and ethical questions that the government and their own collegues would never allow it.  They only want to cure diseases that are killing people everyday. Could you please explain why people are so against this?


Answer
Hello Paul,
My name is Emily and I am a college student at the University of Central Arkansas. I have recently been learning a great deal on stem cells and the research that has been so hotly debated, and I am confused on exactly why anyone would be against such a promising cure to so many of the terrible diseases.

>Well up to this adult stem cells is showing promise
embreyonic has so far has grown tumors.


Throughout my research, I have found many pro-reseach reasons to persue stem cell advancement, but the only logical anti-stem cell argument that I have found is that life begins at moment of conception (and that clones are going to take over the world!).

>Human life being destroyed or damaged in scientific expirmentation is not a minor issue. Everything we about hypothermia we know because Nazi it expirement with humans by actually killing them from cold.
Now you may be saying wow that was Nazi Germany, they were monster.
Do you know about the The Tuskeegee Expirement in the good ole USA?
They let syphilis go untreared to see what would happen.
There needs to be a serious concerns about moral and ethical concerns
before human expirmentation goes on.

>This doesn't even address the theological concerns.

If you agree with these people, I completely respect that, but that is an opinion that not all of us share, and is not an argument to deny a country from being able to do what others in the world are doing at this moment. I have a few issues that I would like to address about other aspects.

First and foremost, stem cell research will be able cure Alzheimer's disease (European countries like Sweden are doing it in rats at this very moment). Over twenty million people have been estimated to have this disease in the United States alone, and if you hav ever had a friend of family member with this terrible disease,Paul, I know that you understand the torment that the families of these people go through.

>Actually I do my Grandmother right now. There also nothing to indicate a cure
is around the corner. I really don't want federal funds going to this reasearch.
You might want to read this Charles Krauthammer.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/8205

Why would you not encourage research to cure this epidemic? Before you answer that, let me tell you some things that you might not be aware of. First, it is a common misconception that scientists want to pay women for aborted fetuses at abortion clinics. THIS IS NOT TRUE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. At the time of abortion, the cells of the young fetuses have already separated into specialized cells. This means that they are not stem cells anymore. Scientists are actually wanting to get stem cells from fertility clinics.

>I was already aware of that.


Because it may take a couple several attempts to become pregnant at a fertility clinic, doctors there will remove several aggs and sperm from the couple. They then fertilize all of the eggs and immediatly (within 24 hours) freeze these cells (known as blastocysts). These blastocysts, containing about 30 to 40 unspecialized cells, would not have even implanted into the womb of the mother at this time if it were a natural conception. The fertility clinic then attempts to impregnate the mother with these blastocysts, taking them out of the freezer and thawing them as needed. Once the couple has become pregnant, however, the remainder of these blastocysts are thrown away (Yes! Into the trash can!) My question to you is why can scientists not use these blastocyts that are thrown away everyday for someting that can save millions of people's lives.

>There is no restriction at the current time on private funding of this research.


They are only 30 cells; they have no brain cells, no organ cells, no nerve cells, only cells that will one day become those things.
When President Bush made the decision to so severly limit our study of these cells, he claimed that there were 78 lines of cells that scientists could use to research.

>He is the first President to fund this reasearch at all.
It only effects Federally funded research. Most medical research is done by private means in the US.  


Why is it okay to research these lines and not others?
As it turns out (due to political misunderstandings) there were only about 12 lines available for study, and as of last month, all of these lines were declared contaminated (because they are kept alive on rat cells, and after time the human cells will pick up proteins from these cells and turn into rat/human hybrid cells, making them unusable). This means that as of last month, the USA has been forced to completely halt any valid reseach on stem cells, while the rest of the world is merely years away from beginning to cure the most terrible diseases on the planet (Including Alzheimer's, Huntington's, Parkinson's, and mental illnesses like depression and schitzophrenia).

>Again it only effects the publically funded research.
Most of it in the USA is private research and uneffected by this.


Why is this happening? Why are we forced to throw away what could be saving lives? Why is it okay sometimes (like at the clinics, and the "morning after" pill), but so highly opposed to by some people. No respectable scientist would ever want to use these cells to clone a human because it would involve so many failures and ethical questions that the government and their own collegues would never allow it.

>As I cited at the begining there is a history of unethical scientist.


They only want to cure diseases that are killing people everyday. Could you please explain why people are so against this?


>Well NIH only wanted to treat Syphilis in the Tuskeegee Expirement.
Unethical is unethical.