Good Morality Is Good Medicine

Compared to the morally acceptable alternatives, embryonic stem cells aren't making the grade

By Richard M. Doerflinger

The recent congressional elections have brought new hope for the passage of pro-life legislation, including a ban on human cloning. Equally important to the cloning debate, however, is a race of a different sort--the race for cures.

Four years ago, at a December 1998 Senate hearing, legislators and scientists announced that embryonic stem cell research would soon revolutionize medicine. If only we could overcome our qualms about destroying human embryos for their stem cells, we were told, there would soon be cures for diabetes, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury, and other terrible conditions.

Some scientists added that the potential of stem cell research could only be realized if we could create embryos by cloning, to provide genetically matched stem cells for each patient -- a claim later endorsed by many in the scientific community. Pro-life arguments that scientists should pursue alternative means instead -- using stem cells from umbilical cord blood or adult tissue, for example -- were brushed aside as uninformed.

In December 2002, then, it is worth asking: Where are these cures? How close are we to providing cell therapies for these diseases, and where are the therapies coming from?

The answer is that scientists have made amazing progress in using stem cells and other avenues to cure debilitating diseases. But none of the advances now in human clinical trials come from destroying embryos. They come from the morally acceptable avenues that much of the scientific establishment has dismissed as inadequate.

* On April 8, Dr. Michel Levesque announced at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons that he had used a patient's own neural stem cells to provide an almost complete cure for his disabling Parkinson's disease. Levesque removed neural stem cells from the patient's brain, cultured them in the lab for months to produce several million stem cells, then implanted these in the part of the brain affected by Parkinson's. A year later the patient's symptoms had improved by over 80%. The patient himself has been difficult to interview, because after his treatment he began going on ski vacations and deep-sea fishing trips! Levesque is now treating several dozen other patients. Another team, at Emory University in Atlanta, has reported promising results using cells from six patients' own retinas to supply the dopamine they need (Newsday, April 23, 2002).

* Umbilical cord blood, now thrown away four million times a year after live births in this country, is beginning to rival bone marrow as a source of treatments for leukemia and other ailments. Cord blood stem cells seem to be even more effective for some conditions than the adult stem cells in bone marrow, and less likely to be rejected as foreign tissue. Recently a British male nurse with leukemia was "brought back from the brink of death" by injections of cord blood obtained from seven live births (The Guardian, July 9, 2002). Once it was thought that umbilical cords could only produce enough stem cells to treat children. But researchers found that if only one sample has a good genetic match with the patient, it can be mixed with many unmatched samples for successful treatment.

* It's not that adult bone marrow stem cells are losing their appeal. Dr. Mark Freedman, a Canadian neurologist, has used these cells to halt -- and possibly reverse -- multiple sclerosis (MS) in six patients. The bone marrow cells even seem to help regenerate myelin, the protective sheath around nerve fibers that is permanently damaged in MS (Kingston Whig-Standard, Nov. 23, 2002).

* Muscle stem cells are being used in dozens of patients to help repair damaged heart tissue. The American Heart Association, for example (which does not fund research using cells from human embryos or aborted children), has funded successful trials in regenerating new heart muscle in 16 U.S. patients, using muscle stem cells from the patients' own thighs. While these initial trials were intended only to show safety and feasibility, the hearts' pumping ability improved by an average of 58% in 12 weeks (ScienceDaily, Nov. 18, 2002).

* In the field of spinal cord injury, actor Christopher Reeve has traveled the world insisting that only human cloning can provide treatments without tissue rejection. But clinical trials are proving him wrong. In Lisbon, Portugal, for example, Dr. Carlos Lima has helped restore some functioning in four chronic quadriplegic patients with spinal cord injury, by implanting cells from their own nasal mucosa into their spinal cords (Spinal Cord Society Newsletter, November 2002). An Australian team led by Alan Mackay-Sim of Griffith University is also testing use of these cells (known as olfactory ensheathing cells) to treat paralysis in several patients. Nerve cells from the nose are especially useful because they routinely regenerate throughout life as old cells are destroyed by infections (New Scientist, July 11, 2002).

* Finally, what of diabetes? The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) has vociferously demanded diversion of research funds into embryonic stem cell efforts. Yet it is islet cell transplantation, using adult cells from cadavers, that has now reversed or greatly alleviated juvenile diabetes in dozens of patients. Even JDRF's own Dr. Robert Goldstein says the islet cells have been "wildly successful" in helping patients who are now "off insulin and leading a normal life." But he still insists that since the supply of such cells is limited, his group wants to pursue embryonic stem cell research to produce a much larger number of cells (Wired News, Sept. 20, 2002). The fact is that adult islet cells are already helping dozens of patients, while no one has found a way to get embryonic cells to help a single patient. Meanwhile, researchers are finding out how to get adult stem cells from the liver and other sources to provide this ready supply of insulin-producing cells.

These human clinical trials are the tip of the iceberg, with other advances well on their way to treating patients. Meanwhile, embryonic stem cells have produced more problems than originally expected -- problems in getting them to culture in a controlled manner, to differentiate reliably into particular kinds of cells, and to stop producing tumors when transferred into animals. Cloning has created additional problems, as scientists discover that virtually all animals produced by cloning have severe problems of gene expression. Announcements that cloning has produced viable human embryos have been issued, then retracted, as the embryos die before reaching the stage at which stem cells can be obtained.

Supporters of human cloning insist that legislators should not enact a genuine ban on this dangerous procedure, because it must be allowed for research purposes if horrible diseases are to be cured. The new Congress has ample reason to be skeptical.

Mr. Doerflinger is deputy director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.