 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Baby, Baby, Ban
|
|
|
A scientist's fight against embryonic stem cell
research.
|
|
The
national furor over human cloning is certain to continue for
years, regardless of whether or not the U.S. Senate heeds President
Bush's pleas to ban it. The opportunity to create embryonic
stem cells that scientists say could generate every cell type
in the body—thereby revolutionizing medicine—gives many people
pause for ethical reasons.
But in calling for the ban, President Bush raised eyebrows by
claiming he had a scientific objection as well: The possible
benefits of such research, he said, are "highly speculative."
And yet, eminent life scientists the world over have testified
to the extraordinary possibilities of the technology. Even Elias
Zerhouni, President Bush's choice to head the National Institutes
of Health, told Popular Science last year that, with proper
support, the technology was likely to "crack something really
important" and that "it's not right to have a ban." So why do
the president and his allies contend otherwise?
One reason is David Prentice, a stem cell biologist at Indiana
State University. Prentice is a close friend and advisor of
Kansas Republican Senator Sam Brownback, who co-sponsored the
anti-cloning bill. He has also testified on the issue before
Congress and the British and Canadian Parliaments.
"I've tried to look at all the published references and especially
the science," he says. And in his opinion, these show little
evidence that embryonic stem cells will work as medical treatments.
For starters, he claims, James Thomson of the University of
Wisconsin at Madison, one of the discoverers of human embryonic
stem cells, has "actually said that cloning will not be of any
clinical significance." Moreover, "mouse embryonic stem cells
have been around since 1981," he points out. "But to date, when
(scientists) leave the cells in culture, they have not been
able to generate every cell type that exists in the body." Instead
of chasing an undeveloped and potentially dangerous Holy Grail,
he says, scientists should concentrate on using adult stem cells
(a position that, not coincidentally, dovetails perfectly with
President Bush's). Adult stem cells transplanted into small
groups of people with Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis
have yielded promising results.
But other stem cell scientists seem unimpressed with Prentice's
arguments. "It is a false statement that 'cloning will not be
of any clinical significance,'" retorts James Thomson. "Indeed,
understanding reprogramming is one of the central questions
of biology today, and could lead to a revolution in what is
termed 'regenerative medicine.'" |
|
|
Another giant in the field, John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University,
responds that though it's true mouse embryonic stem cells have
been around for two decades, they have been used chiefly to
create genetically altered mice for research. Substantial efforts
to produce different kinds of cells have begun only in the past
few years and results have been "very impressive."
Without disputing the promise of adult stem cell research, Gearhart
adds that not all diseases will respond to the same treatment,
so both embryonic and adult stem cells are likely to "prove
useful, depending on the disease."
But Prentice and his influential friends are not budging. The
research, he insists, is neither "an ethical necessity" nor
"will it become a workable type of therapeutic treatment."
Of course, if the ban is passed, we may never know whether he
is right or wrong.
by Gunjan Sinha |
|
 |
|
|
