The Chimera rears its head – to speak?

Stem cells. Embryonic stem cells. ESC. With all the blabbing, intelligent and otherwise, surrounding this scientific phenomenon, should we care? Is it really a scientific venue of great promise or just a flash point for political talking-heads? Being of the scientific inclination, I lean to the former, yet not with as much unwavering support as some. If restrictions were more relaxed here in the US, would researchers be closer to breakthroughs that could actually be used in humans? Perhaps. Would Muhammad Ali be mounting a comeback in the ring following his cure of Parkinson’s? Highly Doubtful.

The concerns that have engulfed the public’s debate on this topic are many. It is often burdened by semantics, and as such has been a rallying cry for the all consuming abortion debate. Paragraphs, articles, books, and series of texts could be devoted to the science and the ethics that surround ESC, and I won’t even try to scratch the surface here. But tangential to this topic is an equally interesting, if somewhat more unsettling issue that has remained for the most part, until recently, under the public’s radar…

Working within the already restrictive policies dictated by the Bush administration, the question remains how we get stem cell technology (embryonic or adult for that matter) translated into effective medical therapy. It is here where the topic begins to rear its head, thanks to the way research regulations are currently constructed, whether they are federally mandated by congress, the FDA, or the NIH. I’ll digress here for a bit of background before the punch line. As it stands now, in order for any type of medicine / therapy / procedure to get to the bedside or clinic, it has to go through exhaustive research; first at the laboratory bench, then in animal models, and then through a final progression in human subjects. This is not only a very timely endeavor; it is a costly one as well. For some perspective, estimates for the cost of bringing a single drug to market range from $100-$500 million dollars. Any way you cut it its going to be expensive. To bring us back, most of the stem cell debate has focused on the beginning and end of the process. Is it justifiable to sacrifice/harvest an embryo for research purposes, for the potential the technology has to drastically affect the face of human disease as we know it? Yet somewhere in the middle, in the realm of stems cells practical application, a new topic of interest arises. The question surrounds the use of stem cells in animal models (particularly for research on neuro-degenerative disease) and how this research raises some new and interesting questions about another portion of the ‘means’ we may have to use to achieve our ‘stem cell end’.

The transfer of tissues and genetic information between species is nothing new, as gene splicing/transfer and xenoplantation have all been in practice for some time (mammal enzymes inserted into bacteria, porcine heart valves into human patients are just two examples), and while met with some resistance, it never reached the fervor that now surrounds ESCs.

But what if we were to reverse the exchange? What if rather than Bob Johnson getting a new chimp heart, the chimp received the heart from Mr. Johnson? Or more accurately what about whether or not human stem cells would be sufficient for organ repair rather than complete transplant in animals (taken of course within the context of human clinical research). Do any new objections come into play once the pluripotent stem cells are on the table? If the chimp survives an experiment where it received human stem cells to repair damaged cardiac tissue, is it fundamentally different now that it has human and primate cells functioning harmoniously? Perhaps not. But what if the organs in this example were changed? What if the stem cells being exchanged were to be directed down the path of neuro-differentiation? Would an exchange of Mr. Johnson’s stem cells for the sake of neuro-repair in the chimp be TOO sufficient? What if some of those cells are able to constitute novel behaviors, structures, or even thoughts? Are ANY changes objectionable? Is this action/research inherently corrupt thanks to what a certain Dr. Leon Kass would refer to as the “Yuck Factor?” Or is there a threshold that we could try to create?

Now I agree that conceptually this seems Dr. Moreauian. Yet if we are to take this technology seriously (which I think we should) and demand of it’s efficacy like we have demanded of all our other past and current therapies (again, I think yes), then it is a concept we must ponder. With animal trials already being published that show that the injection of same species stem cells to damaged neurological tissue can lead to some degree of regeneration (http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15124028), and tests already being done where human stem cells are introduced into mice, I don’t think it preposterous to think a time will come soon where we sit on the precipice of a species debate not seen since Scopes. It needs to be decided what risks we are willing to take to possibly engender another species with the one quality of life we can call unmistakably human - self-consciousness.

That, and how good ol’ Mojo will be at taking out the garbage…

Written by Erin O'Tool, but posted by S-DOT-Business because Erin forgot his password or something.