Adult Stem Cell Breakthrough, Bad Stem Cell Thinking

Promising news from the stem cell front:

Scientists reported Thursday they had developed a technique that can quickly create safe alternatives to human embryonic stem cells, a major advance toward developing a less controversial approach for treating for a host of medical problems.

The researchers published a series of experiments showing they can use laboratory-made versions of naturally occurring biological signals to quickly convert ordinary skin cells into cells that appear virtually identical to embryonic stem cells. Moreover, the same strategy can then coax those cells to morph into specific tissues that would be a perfect match for transplantation into patients.

The work, by a team led by Derrick J. Rossi of the Children's Hospital Boston, was praised by other researchers as a breakthrough.

The article explains the new technique in more detail. I did find this quote to be an interesting commentary on the need for people to think more carefully about this issue:

Scientists hope embryonic stem cells will lead to cures for...a host of...ailments because they can turn into almost any tissue in the body. But they can be obtained only by destroying days-old embryos, which some consider equivalent to killing human life.

Some consider? Does any biologist contest the fact that the embryo is very early human life that will indeed be killed in the process of ESCR?  Is anyone unsure about what kind of embryo is being killed? I suspect that if you were to push the author on this question, he would concede that of course it's biologically human life, but it's not valuable human life as older humans are.

But this is why people need to be more precise with their words. Let's make it clear to people that we really are talking about human life at the earliest stages. Using the term "human life" to refer only to the humans who meet a preferred standard for value is a good way to perpetuate a bias against certain human beings (be they embryos or slaves), but it's not honest.

A person who does not believe that every human life is valuable ought to use language that conveys this clearly so there's no confusion in our culture about the judgment being made against certain humans. Contrast "valuable human life" with "non-valuable human life," but leave the "human life" constant if all involved are humans. Something like this:

But they can be obtained only by destroying days-old embryonic human life, which some consider equivalent to killing valuable human life.

Then those who feel strongly about upholding the principle of universal human rights will more easily recognize when they are violating their own principle.

[UPDATE: The phrase "which some consider equivalent to killing human life" has been removed from the article at The Washington Post. You can still find it with slightly different editing here and here.]

Comments

[Louis Kuhelj]

What I find really strange is the reasoning of those who contend that evolution in its most radical form is true and then contend that an embryo is not a a human being. Does that mean that all the evolutionary adaptations over the millions of years just suddenly pop into existence at birth and aren't latent all throughout the early developmental stages? Assuming that evolution is true, it attests to the humanity of the unborn. Therefore, even those deeply committed to evolution have no excuse for misidentifying the early stages of development as anything other than a human being.

[Matt Hoberg]

This new advance raises a variety of new ethical and legal concerns, even though it might reduce reliance on embryonic stem cells in the long run. I write more about the legal and ethical issues here:

http://theconsternationofphilosophy.blogspot.com/

[ToNy]

Amy,

>> "Does any biologist contest the fact that the embryo is human life?"

Why not just ask your local architect about non-euclidean geometry while you're at it?

Your question should read:

Does anyone who studies the Philosophy of Biology question whether or not an objective taxonomy has been instantiated in the platonic realm, and that said taxonomy contains Natural Kinds for the terms "human" and "organismal life"?

Answer: yup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_biology

If you neglect to ground your words Amy, then you're merely giving Amy's opinion about when "human organismal life" begins.

As is everyone else in the debate.

[James]

I have to agree with ToNy. Saying that a biologist is the expert in when human life begins is like saying that Stephen Hawking is the expert on whether God created the universe.

[Jason Dulle]

Amy,

The paragraph you quoted:

Scientists hope embryonic stem cells will lead to cures for...a host of...ailments because they can turn into almost any tissue in the body. But they can be obtained only by destroying days-old embryos, which some consider equivalent to killing human life.

does not appear in the article you linked to. Similar wording appears, but not the same. And the crucial phrase, "which some consider equivalent to killing human life" does not appear at all. Did you link to the wrong article, or did the author update the article since this post?

[Amy]

Jason, I'll check what happened, but I definitely just cut and pasted. I didn't retype it.

[Amy]

Well, what do you know. That sentence has been removed from the article. I didn't know they could do that.

It still appears with slightly different editing on this website.

[Brad B]

Gee, Tony, you have proven you are a very smart guy. If us dummies could just understand what you said, communication could occur.

[ToNy]

Brad,

Don't hate me because i'm beautiful.

[Denis]

James, I think there is one critical difference you are overlooking; unlike the beginning of the universe, the beginning of human life is repeatable and observable. This makes it perfectly suited to scientific inquiry and understanding.

Science may be incapable of answering some of the important related questions, but it can give us an informed picture of how a human is formed and develops.

[Marjorie Cooper]

Cormatrix has products already on the market, being used successfully throughout the US and now in Europe, that stimulate the body's own stem cells to rebuild tissue. The company's products are at this time confined to cardiovascular applications.
www.cormatrix.com

[Marjorie Cooper]

For further clarification: The application materials have NOTHING to do with embryonic stem cells.