Last week, an exchange student from Spain that was a friend of mine in high school emailed me. Thank goodness he’s fluent in English, as I have somehow not absorbed Spanish through osmosis. I live in Los Angeles and still can’t figure out how that has not happened, but that’s another story.
He and his wife are having a baby (affectionately termed human-cub but soon to be known as Nicolas) in about a week. He’s become a big fan of the blog and has written me some very interesting think pieces of his own. When the baby is born, they are going to be preserving some of his umbilical stem cells in case a) the research provides a viable method of reversing diseases that are currently fatal, degenerative or untreatable and b) the boy develops one of those diseases.
It’s an expensive procedure, harvesting the cells, and they have to be preserved which also costs money. Richard Branson, the Virgin billionaire, is leading the charge on collecting and storing of stem cells in a bank for private citizens. It’s really no different than a blood bank. Stem cells (which, can I just say are in dire need of a name change - ghastly!) can be collected from the amniotic fluid of pregnant women and the umbilical cord of newborns.
But scientists need a LOT of cells for research. The discussed solution has been to grow embryos and then kill them for the cells or use already destroyed embryos from abortions. Understandably, this is controversial but the majority of the American public supports the research. President Bush has twice vetoed to expand federal funding on religious/moral grounds and scientists are hoping the next president will deliver in '08.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, has allocated state funding for it and California is now leading the US research. Scientists are universally convinced that stem cell therapy is breakthrough technology and are taking steps to ensure ethical responsibility.
Finding a way to continue the research drives scientists like William Hurlbut to find a way to get the stem cells without killing babies. He gave a presentation to the Vatican on his homegrown sacks of cells (and hair, teeth, nails) that aren’t human but provide the cells. It’s still enough to make the average person squeamish but this is an elevated level of concern from how we've used animals for decades in the name of science and human health. (The article about Hurlbut is a fascinating read, by the way.)
My Spanish friend was commenting on the fact that given the option, how could any parent say no to preserving these cells for potential future use? Could you imagine your child developing a life-threatening disease and flashing back to five or ten years ago when you decided not to spend the money on what could have been the cure? But what if it’s a bunch of hype like being cryogenically frozen when you die?
Critics say that the procedure is taking advantage of parents since the chance of a child developing a disease treatable by this method is 1 in 10,000, 1 in 20,000 or between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 200,000 depending on which article you read. That sounds definitive. By that rationale, we should immediately outlaw insurance and arrest everyone profiting from the biggest rip-off on the planet. Without the research, how can anyone say what diseases stem cells might be capable of treating?
The fact is, scams are rarely this high profile and don’t usually involve overwhelming support of the scientific community. Regenerative medicine has already proven to be extremely effective and the days of relying on government to regulate progress are over. Across national and political lines, the public is casting ballots of support with their purchasing decisions. Individuals, like my friend, are creating our future and I for one am grateful. The chances are when stem-cell therapy becomes available, it will be someone else's cells that will save the life of someone you love.
No comments:
Post a Comment