Brawne 1 Maria Brawne Professor Guenzel ENC 1102-0014 April 16, 2014 Final Draft The Possibilities Are

Endless Stem cells. Two relatively small words as names for these millions of microscopic things that could, theoretically, have the greatest impact on medicine since penicillin and are responsible for torrents of public controversy and intellectual debate. After hearing these words the flood of thoughts and opinions that overcome a person, even remotely familiar with how stem cells appear in media, can be overwhelming. Since their discovery in the early 20th century, stem cells are easily classified as one of the most controversial topics in science and since then have developed into viable forms of creating cures to currently incurable diseases. The transition from laboratory test tube to humans in a hospital has taken about 100 years to materialize since the first clinical trial of embryonic stem cells for treatment of spinal cord injuries only began in 2010 (Roberts 2). Although a recent application to regenerative therapies, stem cells have catapulted to the center-stage in medicine on an international scale, sparking the hope worldwide of changing medicines many treatment plans into abundant cures. Ranging from blindness and paraplegia to mostly terminal diseases like cancer and heart disease, there is true potential in many of the studies involving stem cells. However, with each promising study that develops, many controversial and ethical implications follow, branching

Brawne 2 from a variety of reasons. An individuals religious affiliation, political ideologies as well as societal status and education level all affect how people view the work in progress with stem cells. The frenzy begins and many times people form their opinions on this issue without facts or by hearing things out of context, as they are often presented in the media, thus causing unfounded sentiments on stem cells. The result then is the formation of two sides, those for stem cells and those opposed, and a 100-year battle to fight for the next big medical breakthrough. So what can be done? How can anything be accomplished and where does this type of biotechnology go on from here? In truth, if the answer was explicit perhaps medicine would be furthered and somehow both groups would be satisfied but it is very difficult to find middle ground in situations like this. Still, one exists, the qualified response to stem cells attempts to tackle the ethical gray area between pro and anti-stem cells. Therefore, the argument presented will attempt to add to this discourse communitys conversation on stem cells by bridging the void between perspectives and explaining why a qualified response to stem cell research, although the least favored, can prove to be the best approach for broadening the horizons of medicine. Oftentimes hearing anything to do stem cell research throws many into a frenzy and, naturally like anything else misunderstood, people develop opinions on the matter prematurely and sometimes the benefits and disadvantages involved are disregarded. Due to this immediate reaction usually followed by debate, it is necessary to keep in mind that there are two distinct types of stem cells, only one of which stirs controversy. In the human body, at different points in growth, exists adult or somatic stem cells and embryonic stem cells. The former referring to cells found in the tissue of several organs in the body that can be removed and injected in order to regenerate the same type of tissue it originated from (Bhonde et al. 3). Then, of course the widely

Brawne 3 controversial, embryonic stem cells are cells taken from days-old developing embryos and can be used in any tissue throughout the body. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent so with their ability to develop into any of the specialized cells of the body scientists can test for cures and causes to diseases. Cells used in stem cell studies come from past IVF (in vitro fertilization) procedures that were discontinued or unsuccessful hence, they are utilized because they already existed and will be discarded otherwise (Bhonde et al. 3). In order to depose as many misconceptions associated with this topic and better understand the issue at hand requires some myth busting. Firstly, the only place stem cell researchers can attain cells for study are from IVF facilities discarding the very young embryonic cells, thus they are not taken from fetuses in utero and cannot be taken from aborted fetuses (CIRM 8). According to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, a federal organization, cells at this later stage of growth are too old for use and the no available consent would allow for such act. Also, stem cells can be found and safely extracted from other places such as umbilical cords, the placenta, amniotic fluid, adult tissues and organs such as bone marrow, fat from liposuction, regions of the nose, and even from cadavers up to 20 hours after death(Pacholczyk 3). Moreover, creating stem lines from an embryo can destroy the embryo but does not have to anymore because other methods of continuing stem cell lines have been discovered. Remembering that these cells were destined for destruction by some form anyway, scientists have a second method for extracting cells to create a line similar to the preimplantation genetic testing done on IVF babies that does not harm the embryo (CIRM 10). Another bit of faulty information is the idea that stem cell research equates to or automatically leads to human cloning. The National Academy of Sciences as well as the International Society for Stem Cell

Brawne 4 Research have strict bans against these types of developments and regulations in place preventing cloning (CIRM 22). Debates in the medical community involving stem cells can become heated due to the controversial nature of this topic, especially when the media is involved and sometimes viewers at home, overwhelmed by the subject matter struggle to form an opinion. Usually when this occurs two major groups emerge, those for the continued study of stem cells and those against them. Of the two perspectives, certain factions in society have gravitated towards one point of view more so than the other and although individuals of each faction are not limited to the perspectives of the whole, the majority falls in line with being completely in favor or completely against stem cells. The reason being beliefs held by the group must coincide as one to stand as one sound platform. The result, Democrats, other liberal parties, and individuals of science usually gather in support of advancing this new technology and conservatives, Republicans, and religiously based individuals stand against the idea. Someone for the use of stem cells would agree that a responsible expansion of embryonic stem cell research can advance a vital goal--the search for new medical treatments--while respecting the dignity of human life" (Rowley 3). While in the past, the counter argument comes from the conservative side of the political spectrum and ties back to the pro-life view that life begins at conception so in 2001 George W. Bush severed federal funding for [stem cell] development" (OBrien 13). Therefore another divide exists among politicians yet again and the people desperately searching all avenues for treatments to illnesses suffer because in the past and under a Republican president the religious and political right decried the development of embryonic stem cell lines (OBrien 13). Since then, President

Brawne 5 Obama restored funding but the struggle to apply these studies in biotechnology continues (OBrien 14). Somewhere between these two perspectives lies the ethical gray that makes up the third point of view in this debate. This third perspective develops strictly from a place of knowledge meaning the more information known about the world of stem cell research allows an individual the opportunity to make an educated decision on what to support. This opinion of the three is least popular for a multitude of reasons but mostly because the media does not supply enough information to the public regarding this new application in biotechnology, because paralleling the process of stem cells to concepts involved in abortion is misleading and creates ill-conceived notions of what stem cells really are. By no means can an argument be made that stem cells are the magic cure-all of the future because no one has been successfully cured of illness from stem cell treatment however, the research exists and in many studies looks promising (Pacholczyk 5). So taking the qualified approach would best serve someone unsure who may not already feel so strongly about the circumstances of this debate. This response views stem cells not as a case of morality or of ethical concern but as a recent application in biology that needs further exploration in order to unearth full potential. This can also be viewed as a more logistical approach to things, especially when it comes to tackling the use IVF embryos question. Why use those cells? In order to work in a functional and effective manner IVF cells are used because they are there at the disposal of modern medicine or else they will be disposed of. The use of these cells is not viewed as a sacrifice so much as it is a necessary evil being put to better use. In order to better understanding of why the qualified response to the stem cell question serves as best, the current situation of stem cells has to be thoroughly understood. The situation today is calamitous in that science currently stands in a place where it can only fathom the use of

Brawne 6 stem cells in curing diseases now treatment based diseases. Possibilities and theories are yet to develop into realities. Too many illnesses today fall under the category of treatment-based meaning there are no cures and the best option for people diagnosed is different treatment plans, these diseases include Alzheimers, Parkinsons and ALS, all of which are involved in ongoing studies with stem cells, according to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine Stories of Hope column. In the end, these diseases can, and usually, conquer an individuals body and the struggle to maintain health is a constant battle that is often times very painful. With stem cells today, researchers have only scratched the surface of possibilities that stem cells could resolve. There for today's lack of support needs to illnesses without cures and death remains as a result in many incurable diseases. As well, the Medical Society remains static and throughout the years, less people may consider entering the field. As O'Brien's article stated, money is the greatest enemy to stem cells and without it researchers look to continue studies elsewhere or end it completely if they cannot. This dead-end to research causes a major constraint on the Medical Society and stems largely from great public controversy. For these reasons, the cycle is never ending and people needing cures never get them because the money never comes except through private and only recently federal funding (OBrien 14). Accepting the qualified approach means choosing to support stem cell research according to the circumstances at hand. Promoting further studies of how stem cell therapy can help regenerate a spinal cord or retinal damage are two of the many examples of areas where studies lack support due to controversy and lack of funds yet need require further investigation (Ormond 8). However, occasions where the embryonic cells are used for cloning of animals and humans does not strike a dire need and might not require so much attention and support as the search for medical cures. Although, a human has yet to be directly cured of a disease through the

Brawne 7 use of stem cells, scientists have broken down some barriers to create iPS cells, induced pluripotent stem cells. These are adult somatic stem cells that have been genetically reprogrammed to have the pluripotent factor that embryonic stem cell exhibit (CIRM 19). The creation of these cells marks a major innovation for medicine and raises many questions involving the need for embryonic cells now that there is a possible substitute not at the expense of an embryo and not difficult a process as extract cells in the second method mentioned above. However, continuous research must be completed to make sure the reprogrammed cells function to the same potential as embryonic and can be compatible with transplantation procedures of cells (Trosko 6). IPS cells could become the prospective embryonic cells of future medicine but not without research and there are many obstacles in the way of continuing this research. History proves that medicine constantly evolves and if we can be sure of anything, it is that humans will never fully grasp the magnitude of the body and health. An infinite number of opportunities linger in the stem cell world waiting to be discovered, shared and utilized on a global scale. However, how can discoveries be made if the boundaries of science are not pushed? Taking a qualified response to stem cell study minimalizes risk while at the same time managing growth and invention. The amount of uncharted territory in biology truly is insurmountable but scientists have found a clue that can lead to an end, an end of terminal illnesses and permanent pain. In the end one question remains, the hope exists, the risks await and medicine brims full of possibility, everything is ready but is the world?

Brawne 8 Work Cited Bhonde, Ramesh R., et al. "Making Surrogate -Cells From Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: Perspectives And Future Endeavors." International Journal Of Biochemistry & Cell Biology 46.(2014): 90-102. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 April 2014. CIRM. "Myths and Misconceptions About Stem Cell Research." California's Stem Cell Agency. N.p., 1 Jan. 2011. Web. 1 April 2014. <http://www.cirm.ca.gov/our-progress/myths-andmisconceptions-about-stem-cell-research>. O'Brien, Jeffrey M. "The Great Stem Cell Dilemma." Fortune 166.6 (2012): 186-195. Business Source Premier. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. Ormond, D. Ryan, et al. Stem Cell Therapy And Curcumin Synergistically Enhance Recovery From Spinal Cord Injury. Plos ONE 9.2 (2014): 1-10. Academic Search Premier. Web. 30 Apr. 2014. Pacholczyk, Tadeusz. "The Ten Great Myths in the Debate Over Stem Cell Research ." . NCBC, 1 Jan. 2012. Web. 1 Apr. 2014. <https://ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=540>. Roberts, Michelle. "First trial of embryonic stem cells in humans." BBC News. BBC, 10 Nov. 2010. Web. 7 Apr. 2014. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11517680>. Trosko, JE. "Induction Of Ips Cells And Of Cancer Stem Cells: The Stem Cell Or Reprogramming Hypothesis Of Cancer?." Anatomical Record-Advances In Integrative Anatomy And Evolutionary Biology 297.1 (n.d.): 161-173. Science Citation Index. Web. 1 April 2014.