Ride For Life: Stem cell debate still hot topic

Copyright 2004 Toronto Star Newspapers, Ltd.
The Record (Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario)
July 30, 2004 Friday Final Edition
SECTION: LIFE; Pg. D2
LENGTH: 854 words
HEADLINE: Debate on stem cell research heating up
SOURCE: Record news services
DATELINE: NEW YORK

Stem cell research, a topic that long ago spread beyond the laboratory and into politics, caught the spotlight Tuesday at the Democratic National Convention.

A speech by Ron Reagan, a son of the late U.S. president Ronald Reagan, was just the latest development that has kept attention on this difficult and controversial field.

Reagan's death from Alzheimer's disease in June gave a new push to the stem cell advocacy by his widow, Nancy. Soon afterward, Cambridge University announced it would open a major centre for research into stem cells.

Earlier this year, the British government opened a national stem cell bank and American researchers announced they'd created new collections of embryonic stem cells, the kind of stem cell most of the hubbub is about. Those steps added to what many scientists call the inadequate inventory approved by the White House for federally funded research.

In Canada, new legislation approved earlier this year sets this country on a fundamentally different course in stem cell research.

Bill C-6, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, in the works for a decade, sets standards for embryonic stem cell research.

Canadian medical scientists will be allowed to work with surplus embryos created in the course of infertility treatments, but not to clone embryos for research purposes.

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has already said that if elected he'd overturn current U.S. funding restrictions. Kerry was among 58 senators who recently urged U.S. President George W. Bush to relax his policy, which forbids federal funding for research on embryonic stem cell lines created after Aug. 9, 2001. Bush said he won't change his mind.

More stem cell politics are on the horizon. In November, California voters will decide whether to approve a $3 billion US bond issue to finance stem cell research.

Also this year, the United Nations will revisit the issue of whether to propose an international treaty to ban "therapeutic" cloning -- which produces stem cells from cloned embryos -- as well as "reproductive" cloning, which makes babies.

Embryonic stem cells are prized because of their ability to develop into all the cell types found in the body. So scientists are eager to learn how to use them. The most publicized use would be the treatment of diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's and spinal cord injury by coaxing the cells into becoming replacement parts for damaged tissue.

The controversy arises because of where the cells come from. When an embryo is about five days old, it's a sphere composed of about 200 cells, just barely visible to the naked eye. Embryonic stem cells come from the interior of this sphere, and to get them, the embryo has to be destroyed. That's abhorrent to people who consider an embryo to be a developing human life that must be protected.

Let's look at some basic questions behind this confusing topic:

Q. Nancy Reagan's advocacy put the focus on using stem cells to treat Alzheimer's. Will they be useful there?

A: Maybe. But most scientists say that because of the way Alzheimer's attacks the brain, it would be too much of a challenge to try cell replacement therapy, at least in the near future.

Lawrence Goldstein of the University of California, San Diego, hopes to use the cells instead as a laboratory tool to study Alzheimer's.

He plans to introduce Alzheimer's-promoting mutations into human stem cells and then turn them into brain cells in a dish. That way, he says, he can study the very earliest steps that eventually wreck healthy brain cells.

Q. Why use therapeutic cloning to get stem cells?

A: In this procedure, scientists remove the DNA of an egg and replace it with that of another person. The egg is allowed to develop into an embryo. Stem cells from that embryo, a clone, would provide a genetic match to the person who donated the DNA.

So, such cells could be turned into brain tissue or insulin-producing pancreatic cells, for example, which could be transplanted into that person without rejection by the immune system. Or, in a variation on Goldstein's plan, the cells could be studied in the lab for insights into the person's disease.

Q. How long would it take therapeutic cloning to create cells for treating a patient?

A: Current lab procedures take too long to be practical. And time is an important factor. John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University figures it could take months to a year, which he called too long if the cells are needed for victims of spinal cord injury, stroke or heart attack.

So some experts are looking at other stem-cell strategies, regarding therapeutic cloning as just an interim step. One idea is developing banks of diverse stem cell lines with carefully chosen immunological traits, so that lots of patients could find a close match and minimize rejection risk.

Q. Aren't there alternatives to destroying embryos?

A: Yes. The best-known alternative is adult stem cells, which are found in various tissues. Recent studies suggest these cells are remarkably versatile too.

ON THE NET