2008 Woodie Awards
Two angles on the stem cell research initiative
POINT / COUNTERPOINT
Issue date: 11/2/06 Section: Opinion/Editorial
Amendment 2 is nothing more than a political ploy
By Amanda King
Going by what the political ads say, I should be all for Amendment 2. According to scientists at Washington University, my dad might not have debilitating Graft Versus Host Disease had doctors had the luxury of using embryonic cells during the stem cell transplant that eradicated his leukemia. Moreover, my cousin might not have died of leukemia at age 14 for lack of a DNA match - researchers could have cloned matching stem cells.
The only problem with these scientific assertions is that there is little to no scientific evidence to back them up. The truth is that embryonic stem cells are not the cure-all solution to diseases like cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's or diabetes. Years of research in the United States and abroad have yet to yield a single cure from embryonic stem cells.
However, existing adult stem cell treatments have actually resulted in real-life cures and are available for each of the aforementioned diseases. Adult stem cells are matured versions of embryonic stem cells, specialized into performing specific functions. They can be extracted from both children and adults without causing harm to the donor.
More promising treatments are in trial stages right now in the private sector. Even though under federal law drug developers can legally delve into embryonic stem cell experimentation, when it comes to putting their own money on the line, these developers are consistently choosing to research adult stem cells. It's simple. Adult stem cells are producing cures; embryonic stem cells aren't. The public sector should take a cue.
An even better use of federal funds would be to make cryogenic storage of cord blood affordable for the parents of every American baby - starting now. Cord blood can be extracted from a baby's umbilical cord at birth and frozen. Using this approach, the country will sidestep the ethics surrounding embryos and cloning because every American will have his or her own backup DNA in storage, ready to combat degenerative diseases whenever they strike.
So what, then, is scientists' reasoning for pushing forward with research that destroys human embryos? Perhaps the reason is that embryonic stem cells have the capability to function as any type of somatic cell, making them more flexible than adult stem cells - a feasible argument, until four years ago, when a Harvard study showed adult stem cells can be stimulated to perform new functions. Or maybe, as the extreme right would have us believe, it is because these evil pro-choice scientists have a blood lust for the embryos of unborn children. While I don't believe pro-choicers are that evil, I'm not above accepting the circulating "conspiracy theory" that says Amendment 2 is really about cloning.
A cursory scan of Amendment 2 shows a neat piece of legislation, which clearly states, "no person may clone or attempt to clone a human being." But hidden inside the ensuing 1,800 words of legalistic jargon is a disturbing truth. An in-depth study of the author's definition of cloning, coupled with a little scientific vocabulary, reveals that the amendment allows for the very process - somatic cell nuclear transfer - which brought Dolly the sheep clone into being.
The only difference between somatic cell nuclear transfer and cloning, as defined by Amendment 2, is that cells are implanted into an egg whose nucleus has been removed. This is a mere technicality to assuage voters' moral reservations because SCNT still results in an exact genetic copy of the donor - what most Missourians know as a clone.
So what interest do liberal-leaning Missouri politicians have in cloning? The answer is, quite frankly, none. The liberal political machine has allied itself with the scientific community for one reason and one reason only - abortion. Democrats in Columbia, Mo., understand that federal laws protecting embryos from destruction stand the chance of creating a precedent through which social conservatives can argue for the rights of the unborn, potentially leading to the overturn of that Holy Grail of the Democratic Party, Roe v. Wade.
Reading between the lines, Amendment 2 is nothing more than a political ploy, preying upon a scientifically uninformed and polarized populace. Missouri politicians don't seem to care that lives hang in the balance - lives of the sick and the unborn.
Amanda King, a sophomore journalism and international relations major, is a guest writer for The Journal.
The most important thing this amendment provides is hope
By Anna C. Forder
Political signs in yards across Missouri may have voters thinking that if Amendment 2 passes, human clones will be walking among us in no time. First and foremost, it is important for people to understand this amendment does not allow or support the creation of clones, and the wording of the amendment actually bans human cloning or attempted human cloning. This may come as a surprise to voters who have driven past the numerous yard signs claiming the amendment supports or legalizes cloning.
This amendment would allow Missouri scientists to use somatic cell nuclear transfer. Through this process, researchers can create stem cells without fertilizing an egg with sperm. Admittedly, this is the same method used for cloning Dolly the sheep, but, unlike Dolly's case, the egg will not be implanted in a woman's womb.
Using the SCNT method to generate stem cells is not the same as implanting an embryo in a woman's womb for nine months and allowing it to grow into a person. The amendment actually bans this implantation. Instead, it allows SCNT only for the purpose of creation stem cells for research. I fail to see how this amendment promotes cloning.
Opponents are using the term cloning as a scare tactic to frighten unknowing voters into thinking this amendment will allow scientists to create full-grown, human clones in labs that will one day walk among us. Not even close. This amendment simply allows Missouri researchers to follow federal guidelines regarding stem cell research, and it allows Missourians to have the same federal benefits for this research that other states receive without being financially penalized for conducting this research.
Opponents of the amendment also claim that using adult stem cells is a viable alternative that could be used to help find cures for diseases. An adult stem cell, a stem cell taken from a fetus, child or adult, is not a substitute for an embryonic stem cell, according to an article in Washington University in St. Louis Magazine. The article explains that, unlike an adult stem cell, an embryonic stem cell can "differentiate into any type of mature cell." The article also said an embryonic stem cell is unable to develop into a human baby because it is not the same as blastocyst, which is created by fertilizing an egg with sperm.
In addition, adult stem cells have not been shown to treat or cure all of the diseases embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure.
The Web site voters are referred to on the "vote no on Amendment 2" political yard signs, http://www.nocloning.org, says even frozen embryos left over from fertility clinics should not be used, even though they will be destroyed anyway. That makes sense to me. Instead of allowing these embryos to help sick people, pro-life supporters think they're so valuable that we cannot use them for research, even though they will be destroyed.
My entire life I have watched my mother and sister struggle with a disease they were born with - type 1 diabetes. They're my reason for voting yes. For those voters who don't know anyone who could be helped by stem cell research, I assure them this amendment has the potential to change lives. I see the hope my family holds for stem cell research.
Though, no known cures have been generated by stem cell research, that is why scientists want to do further research. Stem cell research has not been exhausted, and it is scientists' responsibility to keep trying. Let scientists do their job.
Embryonic stem cells may help treat or cure: Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's disease, autoimmune diseases, cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, severe burns, sickle cell anemia and spinal cord injuries, among others.
The most important thing this amendment provides is hope; hope that a cure is possible. Don't let the pro-life agenda take charge of this issue and influence Missouri to throw away a chance at real cures for real people.
Anna C. Forder, a senior journalism major, is the copy editor for The Journal.
By Amanda King
Going by what the political ads say, I should be all for Amendment 2. According to scientists at Washington University, my dad might not have debilitating Graft Versus Host Disease had doctors had the luxury of using embryonic cells during the stem cell transplant that eradicated his leukemia. Moreover, my cousin might not have died of leukemia at age 14 for lack of a DNA match - researchers could have cloned matching stem cells.
The only problem with these scientific assertions is that there is little to no scientific evidence to back them up. The truth is that embryonic stem cells are not the cure-all solution to diseases like cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's or diabetes. Years of research in the United States and abroad have yet to yield a single cure from embryonic stem cells.
However, existing adult stem cell treatments have actually resulted in real-life cures and are available for each of the aforementioned diseases. Adult stem cells are matured versions of embryonic stem cells, specialized into performing specific functions. They can be extracted from both children and adults without causing harm to the donor.
More promising treatments are in trial stages right now in the private sector. Even though under federal law drug developers can legally delve into embryonic stem cell experimentation, when it comes to putting their own money on the line, these developers are consistently choosing to research adult stem cells. It's simple. Adult stem cells are producing cures; embryonic stem cells aren't. The public sector should take a cue.
An even better use of federal funds would be to make cryogenic storage of cord blood affordable for the parents of every American baby - starting now. Cord blood can be extracted from a baby's umbilical cord at birth and frozen. Using this approach, the country will sidestep the ethics surrounding embryos and cloning because every American will have his or her own backup DNA in storage, ready to combat degenerative diseases whenever they strike.
So what, then, is scientists' reasoning for pushing forward with research that destroys human embryos? Perhaps the reason is that embryonic stem cells have the capability to function as any type of somatic cell, making them more flexible than adult stem cells - a feasible argument, until four years ago, when a Harvard study showed adult stem cells can be stimulated to perform new functions. Or maybe, as the extreme right would have us believe, it is because these evil pro-choice scientists have a blood lust for the embryos of unborn children. While I don't believe pro-choicers are that evil, I'm not above accepting the circulating "conspiracy theory" that says Amendment 2 is really about cloning.
A cursory scan of Amendment 2 shows a neat piece of legislation, which clearly states, "no person may clone or attempt to clone a human being." But hidden inside the ensuing 1,800 words of legalistic jargon is a disturbing truth. An in-depth study of the author's definition of cloning, coupled with a little scientific vocabulary, reveals that the amendment allows for the very process - somatic cell nuclear transfer - which brought Dolly the sheep clone into being.
The only difference between somatic cell nuclear transfer and cloning, as defined by Amendment 2, is that cells are implanted into an egg whose nucleus has been removed. This is a mere technicality to assuage voters' moral reservations because SCNT still results in an exact genetic copy of the donor - what most Missourians know as a clone.
So what interest do liberal-leaning Missouri politicians have in cloning? The answer is, quite frankly, none. The liberal political machine has allied itself with the scientific community for one reason and one reason only - abortion. Democrats in Columbia, Mo., understand that federal laws protecting embryos from destruction stand the chance of creating a precedent through which social conservatives can argue for the rights of the unborn, potentially leading to the overturn of that Holy Grail of the Democratic Party, Roe v. Wade.
Reading between the lines, Amendment 2 is nothing more than a political ploy, preying upon a scientifically uninformed and polarized populace. Missouri politicians don't seem to care that lives hang in the balance - lives of the sick and the unborn.
Amanda King, a sophomore journalism and international relations major, is a guest writer for The Journal.
The most important thing this amendment provides is hope
By Anna C. Forder
Political signs in yards across Missouri may have voters thinking that if Amendment 2 passes, human clones will be walking among us in no time. First and foremost, it is important for people to understand this amendment does not allow or support the creation of clones, and the wording of the amendment actually bans human cloning or attempted human cloning. This may come as a surprise to voters who have driven past the numerous yard signs claiming the amendment supports or legalizes cloning.
This amendment would allow Missouri scientists to use somatic cell nuclear transfer. Through this process, researchers can create stem cells without fertilizing an egg with sperm. Admittedly, this is the same method used for cloning Dolly the sheep, but, unlike Dolly's case, the egg will not be implanted in a woman's womb.
Using the SCNT method to generate stem cells is not the same as implanting an embryo in a woman's womb for nine months and allowing it to grow into a person. The amendment actually bans this implantation. Instead, it allows SCNT only for the purpose of creation stem cells for research. I fail to see how this amendment promotes cloning.
Opponents are using the term cloning as a scare tactic to frighten unknowing voters into thinking this amendment will allow scientists to create full-grown, human clones in labs that will one day walk among us. Not even close. This amendment simply allows Missouri researchers to follow federal guidelines regarding stem cell research, and it allows Missourians to have the same federal benefits for this research that other states receive without being financially penalized for conducting this research.
Opponents of the amendment also claim that using adult stem cells is a viable alternative that could be used to help find cures for diseases. An adult stem cell, a stem cell taken from a fetus, child or adult, is not a substitute for an embryonic stem cell, according to an article in Washington University in St. Louis Magazine. The article explains that, unlike an adult stem cell, an embryonic stem cell can "differentiate into any type of mature cell." The article also said an embryonic stem cell is unable to develop into a human baby because it is not the same as blastocyst, which is created by fertilizing an egg with sperm.
In addition, adult stem cells have not been shown to treat or cure all of the diseases embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure.
The Web site voters are referred to on the "vote no on Amendment 2" political yard signs, http://www.nocloning.org, says even frozen embryos left over from fertility clinics should not be used, even though they will be destroyed anyway. That makes sense to me. Instead of allowing these embryos to help sick people, pro-life supporters think they're so valuable that we cannot use them for research, even though they will be destroyed.
My entire life I have watched my mother and sister struggle with a disease they were born with - type 1 diabetes. They're my reason for voting yes. For those voters who don't know anyone who could be helped by stem cell research, I assure them this amendment has the potential to change lives. I see the hope my family holds for stem cell research.
Though, no known cures have been generated by stem cell research, that is why scientists want to do further research. Stem cell research has not been exhausted, and it is scientists' responsibility to keep trying. Let scientists do their job.
Embryonic stem cells may help treat or cure: Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's disease, autoimmune diseases, cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, severe burns, sickle cell anemia and spinal cord injuries, among others.
The most important thing this amendment provides is hope; hope that a cure is possible. Don't let the pro-life agenda take charge of this issue and influence Missouri to throw away a chance at real cures for real people.
Anna C. Forder, a senior journalism major, is the copy editor for The Journal.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Pamette Balda
posted 11/09/06 @ 7:34 PM EST
AWESOME, Amanda!
Post a Comment