By Lubna Abdel-Aziz There is a great big hope out there in Scienceland that will cure all human ailments, rejuvenate all aging tissues, promising health, youth, energy and beauty for as long as we wish. No more ugly aging, thinning hair, poor eyesight, tired limbs and sickly organs -- no more heart, lung, brain, pancreas or artery disorder? Not if we have access to stem cells. Stem cells will bring new life to dying organs, serving as a repair system for the human body. We are to live and die as exquisitely young and lovely as we were in the prime of our youth. Better yet, why die at all if we are productive, healthy and successful, what a waste that would be! Such is the promise of the new groundbreaking scientific venture that is causing all the buzz, the fuss, the sound and the fury. Can anyone object to such a breakthrough? The death of President Ronald Reagan after 13 years of a losing battle with Alzheimer's has brought the stem cell issue back to the fore, grabbing all the headlines, eliciting more controversy and more prayers. Nancy Reagan gave her blessings to stem cell research, lamenting the fact that not only she, but the country, maybe the world, was robbed of the wit and wisdom of her husband, as he lay captive to a debilitating disease, drifting away into intellectual oblivion, when he could have been a viable contributor to his family, his friends, his party, his country. Would the late president, a staunch pro-lifer and a conservative anti- abortionist, have himself supported stem cell research? The answer will never be known, yet his death has not only given stem cells a new shot in the arm, but his name is being used on a new Bill introduced in several states to provide money for stem cell research. Many Republicans are coming out in support of stem cells and against their own administration's position. In a survey last week, 74 per cent of Americans support Nancy Reagan's stand to lift Bush's restrictions on stem cell research. A few months into his presidency, on 9 August 2001, Bush announced that researchers would be prohibited from using Federal funds to perform embryonic stem cell research on any stem cell lines developed after 9.00pm that same day, thus appeasing all pro-right, pro-lifers, and angering all pro-health, pro-researchers. The fact that embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that could have potentially developed into babies has had right-to-lifers, ethicists, moralists, religious advocates and legislators up in arms. Tinkering with the very cells that form human life was an intolerable exercise, even if its aim is exclusively targeted to alleviate human suffering and save human lives. That is no surprise. Science and religion are often at odds with each other. All new scientific discoveries are generally met with initial resistance, as we are emotionally slow to accept any change. Eventually acceptance sets in and we allow progress to march forward. The problem nowadays is the speed with which scientific breakthroughs happen, robbing us of the ample time needed to adjust to them. Science has caught up with science fiction, flabbergasting us at every turn. In the case of stem cells with their bright promise and unlimited potential, further research is unstoppable. Armed with the new genetic map -- the human genome -- and an abundance of stem cells, scientists are able to study how genetic malformations occur, and pharmacologists are able to design new drugs that are aimed precisely at the disease process with negligible effects on normal tissues, like perfect arrows hitting their targets. Before the final mapping of the genome, these technologies could not have been possible. Conventional drugs are imprecise and many fight symptoms rather than cure illnesses directly. Stem cells have the remarkable capacity to remain in culture indefinitely continuing to faithfully reproduce themselves while still retaining the capacity to develop into any type of cell in our bodies. They can theoretically serve as a bank of spare parts -- ready to replenish and rejuvenate our aging bodies, bringing new life to dying organs including the brain. Supporters believe that the potential for cure of a broad range of diseases lies with stem cells, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Strokes, Spinal cord injury, Lou Gehrig's Disease, Juvenile Diabetes, Leukemia, Cancer, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Osteoarthritis, Systemic Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, Liver Failure, AIDS, Burns, Blindness, Retinal haemorrhage, Macular degeneration, Deafness, etc., etc., etc. Millions and millions of adults and children affected by diseases and injuries for which there is no known cure today, would be saved. Take it further still -- every time an organ ages or malfunctions it can be replaced, and on, and on -- ad infinitum. Will we really conquer cancer, AIDS and Diabetes? Will we really conquer disease and death? Should we be allowed therefore to conduct research using human embryos? Opponents insist that there is no proof that stem cells can successfully replace dead or damaged cells. Proponents point to the overwhelming evidence that injecting these cells into experimental animals in which these diseases have been induced, has resulted in reversal of the disease process. The debate that has polarised science and religion for centuries, continues. When does life begin? From where can we acquire our stem cells? 1) From embryos, while they are still a microscopic cluster of cells, 2) from fetal tissue such as umbilical cord blood, and 3) from adult tissues, most notably the bone marrow. The controversy is over embryonic stem cells because they are favoured, due to their incredible versatility and the ease with which they can differentiate into any of the cells of the body. They are derived from preimplantation blastocysts, five days after the union of sperm and egg, mere microscopic structures that can fit on a pinhead. Opponents claim that harvesting of these cells destroys a human life. Proponents state that these are left over from in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) clinics, destined to be discarded or destroyed. Using surplus eggs donated by those to whom "pro-life" also means saving the lives of suffering and dying human beings should be sanctioned. "Pro-life?" Is it the protection of a potential life yet to exist, or a life already in existence, threatened by death and disease? We would be hard-pressed to find any human who is not "pro-life". The issue is which life are we protecting and defending! In all fairness, the Bush administration is not the only one that is opposed to stem cell research. Countries like Germany, France, Canada, Italy, Australia have all prohibited stem cell research. The British on the other hand were able to arrive at a reasonable and acceptable compromise, leaving the door ajar for research on early human embryos and stem cell research. They have determined that while still floating in the birth canal without any signs of life, the human embryo cannot be accorded the same rights as a mature human. In any case the natural attrition rate of fertilised eggs is remarkably high, with only 20 per cent ever making it. At 14 days, while implanted in the inner wall of the womb, the embryo begins to demonstrate early recognisable signs of life. Only then can it be accorded equal consideration. The story of humanity is written not by men who could have been, but by men who lived and toiled. The pageant of history is displayed not by invisible names that were never there, but by illustrious names that worked to improve humanity's lot! However, the question still remains: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, [like disease and death,] or To take arms against a sea of trouble, embracing outstanding opportunities afforded by scientific knowledge, "Wise men never sit and wail their loss". Yet are we justified in borrowing life from life! The question still remains: To be or not to be? William Shakespeare, Hamlet 3 i
