|
You have been told that embryonic stem cells and
therapeutic human cloning holds mankind's brightest "promise"
for cures. In my opinion, you've been told a lie!
Leading scientists admit the therapeutic potentials
of embryonic stem cells are probably ten years away or more. This time-span
will not be shortened by cloning. Stem cells derived
from cloning contain widespread, unpredictable genetic flaws. In
cloned animals these flaws lead to tumor formation, mutations, disease,
and premature death. When used in adult tissues, embryonic stem cells from
any source, whether from cloning or not, has led to
inappropriate tissue growth, malignant tumor formation, genetic
mutation, and immune rejection. Cloning is being hyped as an embryonic
stem cells source able to avoid rejection. However, leading pro-cloning
researchers admit they fully believe that stem cells derived from cloning
will still be rejected by the donor from which they're
cloned. In fact, a study in mice has already confirmed this
point. Therefore, regardless of what embryonic stem cells may or
may not have the potential to do, huge safety, reliability, and
practical issues need to be overcome before they can begin to
reach their mythical potential.
Regarding cloning, in predicting the availability of
cloning-based cures, pro-cloning scientist Jane Rowley of the President's
Bioethics Council likened the development of therapeutic cloning to
America's war on cancer, which was declared in the early seventies and
regarding which Dr. Rowley admits "we're still not even close."
So when Dr. Rowley says therapeutic cloning "may take a long
time" to realize its potential, please consider the misery and death
that might be avoided if resources needed to develop this highly
speculative, highly problematic avenue were instead restricted to safe,
effective, less problematic alternatives.
My written handout explains what these alternatives
are and my reasons for believing they're valid. At this point you might
wonder why we would be encouraged to travel these paths if we do
indeed have safer, more direct paths to our clinical goals. In my opinion
this question goes to the heart of a matter that many see as a struggle
to define human life, but that I see as a test in which our
actions will expose who and what we are. Please consider these issues
from the following pro-cloning, pro-embryonic research
perspectives.
Actor Christopher Reeve supports embryonic research
avenues. His views are shared by others in entertainment and the media.
Some do so because they've accepted speculative claims about miraculous
cures that seem to make sense until one looks at cold, hard
facts. Others promote embryonic research out of pro-abortion
viewpoints. But in my opinion these issues are not about
abortion, they're about diverting funds and resources away
from research that has a strong likelihood for leading to effective
treatments or outright cures in the foreseeable future. In some
cases, including for Diabetes, reversing paralysis, Parkinson's Disease,
Sickle Cell Anemia, Multiple Sclerosis, Leukemia, and Heart Disease,
Science is literally on the threshold of producing these
treatments, not ten years away!
Consider the case of Mr. Reeve, who raises millions
for basic academic research. According to Reeve, he bases
his cloning support in part due to statements he attributes
to Dr. John McDonald, an embryonic stem cell researcher funded by
Reeve's foundation. Dr. McDonald supposedly told Reeve that only
embryonic stem cells could recoat his spinal cord with a fatty
insulation, called myelin sheathing, and that only embryonic
stem cells derived from cloning would be safe to use. Yet this same
researcher has implanted cells taken from pigs into human
patients for the same purpose. Why is it safe to use cells from pigs on
others, but only cloned embryonic cells on Reeve? Nor was Mr.
Reeve told that four adult cell-types have proven able in animal models to
remyelinate the brain and spinal cord (neural stem cells, bone marrow stem
cells, olfactory ensheathing glial cells Schwann Cells), none of which
face rejection, and all of which are on the verge of human
testing. Apparently he wasn't told that researchers at Harvard claim
neural stem cells provide the optimum means to achieve this end, or that
Yale is already conducting a Multiple Sclerosis clinical trial using
one of these methods (adult Schwann Cells).
Mr. Reeve's condition is much worse than mine, and
his time is much more constrained. Therefore Mr. Reeve has little
choice but to believe what he's told by those with a personal stake
in these issues, either through his foundation's financial support, or
through its continued existence. In New York he claimed the only possible
cure for ALS lay in embryonic stem cell research. When told a multi-center
clinical trial for ALS was underway in Italy using the patient's own bone
marrow stem cells, he refused to believe it.
Regarding the motives of biotech: Embryonic
stem cell and cloning research need public assistance. Their problems are
too many and too complex. Future potentials for profits are too far in the
future to attract knowing investors. Embryonic cell-based companies
therefore actively support public and private funding of these avenues in
the hopes a gullible public will pay for solutions that investors
won't.
Regarding the motives of biotech and
pharmaceutical firms not interested in pursuing these avenues, but
who politically support their cause: What better way can
they protect profits gained from selling drugs or treatments that
only treat conditions, which adult stem cells or other
non-embryonic avenues are likely to cure, than to support the
diversion of resources towards avenues that offer no immediate threat and
only a very uncertain future threat? The same course of action
protects their product pipeline.
Regarding Academic Researchers: Some study
embryonic science. Some want to stay in the good graces of the NIH. For
others, Science is an end in itself, not a means to an end, not to be
questioned, and never to be denied.
Regarding politicians: Some honestly believe
the hype. Others have no regard for truth and less for their
constituents suffering. These latter embrace embryonic research as a
means of gaining campaign financial support from bio-tech (as in
Utah Senator Orrin Hatch) and campaign voter support based
on the illusion that embryonic research is the voter's interest.
Regarding the sick, disabled, and dying: We
need hope to survive. We need to believe the scientists and doctors
we blindly trust are primarily interested in saving our lives, or making
us well. We don't want to consider we're being used...used
by researchers, corporations, institutions, foundations, and political
leaders. But the sad, unvarnished truth is we are.
If you want to support embryonic sectors in
biotech...if you want to protect pharmaceuticals by suppressing or
delaying cures...if you want to enhance your political fortunes by
misleading your constituents to their ultimate loss, then by all means
support embryonic research and cloning. But admit to yourself you're promoting
Science for the sake of Science, or Science for the sake of profits, or
Science for the sake of votes, but not Science for the sake of
cures. Or else not only will you be part of the lie, but you'll have
swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. |
