Stem Cell Options - March 2012

Let’s suspend for a moment our preconceived positions on the issue of embryonic stem-cell research. Assume temporarily that the vast majority of scientists who claim that embryonic stem  cells offer unique therapeutic potential are correct. Of course the treatments and cures, if and when they materialize,  will be worth billions of dollars to the patent holders who get there first. Whether the disease is autism, cerebral palsy, MS, Parkinson’s, spinal cord injury, stroke, or any of the myriad of illnesses in which embryonic stem cells may prove helpful,  many patients and their families will gladly pay whatever it takes.  Now let’s suppose that the patient is the child of an individual whose beliefs oppose the use of embryonic stem cells in this way.  That individual will have two options – allow his/her child to continue suffering and perhaps die prematurely, or submit to a type of treatment the he/she philosophically opposes.  Are there more than a handful of zealots who would choose the former alternative? I think not. 

The politico-religious advocacy of those determined to block advancements in this area may slow America’s efforts, but will prove irrelevant in the global competition.  China, known for its brilliant scientists and its ability to fund such research, will be among the first to cross the finish line. Russia will not stand idly by. Europe is already a player. So the quandary over whether to honor their prejudices or save their child will eventually confront many of the anti-progress activists.  Confronted with this moral dilemma, some will elect to access the treatment while hiding their participation.  Thus the moral bottom line is that they will chose hypocrisy over science.

Another point for the Luddites to ponder is that nothing they do will have any effect on  how embryos are harvested.  American scientists with a specialization in embryonic stem-cell research will simply go to other countries where their expertise is welcome, where rewards may prove greater, and where they are not vilified by those unqualified to debate the issue.   Somewhere along the way, a treatment derived from embryonic stem cells may save the life of a future president, or even a community organizer who personally improves thousands of lives.

But we live in a country in which the militancy of people who can barely imagine the complexity of a cell may determine whether America is allowed to move forward in this vital area of research. These people’s expertise lies in less practical areas, such as how best to advocate the commands of an organization that replaces thought with mumbo jumbo.  Can’t we pass a law that says that those who oppose science now will not be allowed to enjoy its benefits in the future?  If so, I am willing to submit to a law that forbids me from enjoying any of the future benefits of religion. Besides, why do they need science when they have access to something far more powerful, the healing power of the creator of the universe with whom they are in daily contact.