Great stem cell news, great analysis
There are lots of good and probing commentaries out there about last week’s stunning announcement that skin cells can replace embryonic stem cells as the hope for medical cures of the future.
For the last decade, scientists in favor of cloning have been telling us that human embryo cloning was the key to the “stem cell century” and would revolutionize medical care for hundreds of millions suffering from intractable disease.
The LA Times piece takes you through some background, summarized well and necessary to review for the full awareness of what writer Hayes goes on to pinpoint.
But the great unreported story of the cloning debate is that research using cloning also has been viewed skeptically by many scientists and public interest advocates who identify as liberals, progressives and supporters of women’s health and reproductive rights.
Many have noted the immense technical hurdles that would have to be overcome before cloning could ever be used therapeutically. Others are concerned about access and affordability, given that cloning-based stem cell therapies would likely cost upward of $100,000 a treatment. Still others recognize that the development of cloning techniques for research would open the door to human reproductive cloning and an array of high-tech eugenic and “designer baby” applications. And many women’s health leaders are concerned about the risks posed by the fact that millions of women’s eggs, which are the raw materials of cloning, would be needed each year if the promised era of personalized medicine through cloning were ever to materialize.
As soon as religious conservatives called for embryo cloning to be banned, however, liberal leaders reacted by uncritically embracing it. From that point on, it was an uphill struggle for liberals who otherwise supported stem cell research to raise questions about cloning without being portrayed as dupes or fellow travelers of the Bush administration.
We can now put this sorry history behind us and get on with promising medical research that is supported by all sides.
Hopefully. Hayes lays out several proposals for how to move forward now, with this conclusion:
Finally, Congress and the president should realize that cloning is only the tip of the human biotech iceberg. Techniques are under development that would enable creation of designer babies, genetically modified athletes, artificial life forms that can mutate and reproduce, and more. We need federal laws and regulations allowing genetic technology to be used for socially benign and beneficent purposes, while precluding its use for objectionable purposes.
There is no reason, especially now, why we cannot find common ground on such consequential issues. The stakes are huge and time is short.