Hundreds of human embryonic stem cells. The reddish ones have completed the process of becoming nerve cells; the green ones are still precursors. (Photo: University of California, Los Angeles/California Institute for Regenerative Medicine)

All three diseases could be gone—non-existent. New treatments, and possibly an outright cure, can come from stem cells. “And without side effects,” added Dr. Peter Brink, a stem cell researcher at Stony Brook University in New York.

Most restrictions have just been lifted on federally-funded research using embryonic stem cells. That alone opens a giant door to huge advances in the field. President George W. Bush’s executive order of 2001 had limited embryonic-based research to a small number of pre-existing stem-cell lines. (These “lines” are lab-grown cells, resulting from the continual division of one parent cell.)

Bush’s restrictions had forced researchers to scramble for private funding. With the ban gone, researchers say embryonic stem cells and federal funds could be more readily available for research.

But because the harvesting of embryonic stem cells kills the embryo, opponents say the cure isn’t worth it. An embryo, according to the opponents, is a human being in its earliest form—one that will eventually become a fetus. The embryos are “defenseless human beings,” said Lewis Ragonese of the Right-to-Life Association chapter in Syracuse, New York. “And right now, the government is going to let them be killed.”

Rather than cheering the reinstated availability of embryonic stem cells, Ragonese and other opponents want their use banned, and all government-funded research eliminated.

Colonies of human embryo stem cells. The nuclei are blue. The pink and green spots hold the key to the cells' ability to differentiate into different cell types. (Photo: University of California, Riverside/California Institute for Regenerative Medicine)

He said there have been few favorable results from embryonic-based research, so there is no sense in continuing to use human embryos. Besides, he argues, harvesting stem cells from elsewhere could provide the same possibilities.

“We can get stem cells from adult skin tissue and other sources,” said Ragonese. “They have infinite potential.” He called continuing with embryonic stem-cell research “morally questionable.”

Researchers counter Ragonese’s point about the lack of results, saying the research is still in its infancy. And they aren’t at all certain about other sources of stem cells, which would be years in coming. James Thomson, a pioneer researcher in creating the alternative, “reprogrammed” stem cells at the University of Wisconsin, recently warned there “could be evidence” showing these alternative stem cells to be “fatally flawed.”

Peter Brink, the scientist at Stony Brook, said the value of embryonic stem cells lies in their ability to grow into any kind of cell. Stem cells, he said, could eventually repair or replace organs damaged by illnesses without the side effects of most of the treatments used today.

For example, in the United States:

Cancer
Over 500,000 people a year; the second leading cause of death.
Stem cells: could be used to replace bad cells and cancer-causing tissue.

Diabetes
Over 75,000 people a year; the sixth leading cause of death.
Stem cells: could regenerate cells in the pancreas that create insulin, a hormone diabetics lack that allows the body to metabolize sugar. Without it, diabetics are at risk for nerve damage, kidney failure, and blindness.

Alzheimer’s Disease
Over 71,000 people a year; the seventh leading cause of death in the country.
Stem cells: could help repair degenerated brain tissue, restoring the brain’s ability to retain new memories.

These smooth muscle cells could someday replace cells in blood vessels, bladder, intestines, and uterus. (Photo: Burnham Institute for Medical Research/California Institute for Regenerative Medicine)

A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2005 reported that 32 percent of Americans oppose destroying embryos to harvest stem cells. However, 56 percent favor the research to find new cures for diseases.

Seven states have created their own programs to fund stem-cell research, to help move the field along. One of these is New York’s Empire State Stem Cell Board, and a board member, Samuel Gorovitz, is a medical ethicist. He acknowledged the debate. “People say that it’s not right to use public money to support what is strongly opposed by some segments of the public,” he noted.

Gorovitz is in favor of expanding the use of non-embryonic stem cells. Peter Brink, the Stony Brook researcher, concurred: “We should explore any method that seems promising.”

Ragonese, of the Syracuse Right-to-Life Association, agrees. “I don’t want everyone to think we’re opposed to treating diseases, or even stem-cell research,” he said. “We just don’t want embryonic cells used. There has to be a better way.”

Mark Banick is a newspaper journalism major in his junior year at Syracuse University; his minor is in religion. He is a contributor to Democracywise, a political news Web site at the university.