Kimmelman Jonathan, Baylois Francois, Grass Kathleen, (2006) “Stem cell trials: Lessons from gene transfer research”, 23-26.

When I first heard of stem cell research I wondered how the government could refuse Stem cell research, something that holds the cure for diseases like Alzheimer’s , Cancer or even HIV/AIDS. I didn’t know the background story and how stem cell research borders on the morality of what is ethical and what isn’t. Is it acceptable to save one life but kill another? The critics and the religious minded who believe life begins at conception see this as murder, while proponents praise it as innovative and groundbreaking, in helping save millions of lives. This Cutting-edge new experiment challenges and goes against numerous religions that oppose killing human life, which makes it so controversial. The issue of stem cell research largely involves the destruction of five to seven year old embryos, and raises the morality of this experiment. It questions our principals and makes us wonder are we really sacrificing a life or saving one? You have to choose between two wrong things. While there is immense excitement among scientists and people of the possibility of the millions of human lives stem cells can save there is also a great safety concern as well.
Stem cell research has always been a very relevant topic. Over the last decade politicians, Scientists and theorists have debated on the medical advancement of stem cell research, its regenerative medicine and the remarkable opportunities it has opened up. Those who value human life from the point of conception and oppose embryotic stem cell research may have a hard time coming to terms with it. It’s a major political issue in America mainly because in 2009 President Obama vetoed a controversial decision to allow federal funds be used to aid embryotic stem cell research. Its relevance will continue to remain because of the amount of diseases stem cells can be used to cure, so much so the more research and facts we know about this the better.
In 1998 James Thomson and John Gearhart were the first scientists to successfully use Human stem cells or as called now “gene transfers”. Over the years numerous scientists have boasted about gene therapy and the lives it can save, yet no stem cell research development has been approved for clinical use in the United States or Europe, until of recent. In the beginning of gene therapy (an earlier form of stem cell research) scientists heralded it as a modern advancement that could save lives, but withheld information showing how truly harmful it could be and the risks they are taking. Just like stem cell research. In the journal article stem cell Trials: lessons from transfer research the authors shows similarities that embryotic stem cell research and gene therapy have and the mistakes once made in Gene therapy, and how it serves as a warning. This journal article critique argues that this is not the first time that experiments evolving genes has been tried stating the similarities in the way we handled Gene therapy and stem cells.
The purpose of this article is to use the gene transfer experiments that began in the early eighties and use them as a warning on how we can better handle stem cell research. This article warns us not to move too quickly and to pursue stem cells only when you have preclinical data. As explained in the article “Gene transfer suffered another setback in 1995, when the National Institute of health (NIH) commissioned review concluded that only a minority of clinical studies… had been design to yield useful basic information. This quote emphasizes that initial studies of gene therapy were not exploratory and many clinical gene therapy studies have not met high standards of experimental design as a caution. The author also highlights “Cell transportations involves very high risks methods. So those who participate in early trials are not going to benefit directly, it will more or likely harm them than help them”. This journal article also claims that there is sometimes an “overselling of science’’ without actual proven results. The National institute of health largely criticized gene therapy research studies as “unrealistic portrayals of medical potential clouded by ethical deliberations and promoting therapeutic misconception, undermining the scientific aspects of trials, while drawing attention away from risks that such experiments pose to research participants”. The authors also claim that there is also a conflict of interest in fields like stem cell research for those companies and investors that are just looking for a financial gain. “Characterized by investigators and institutions who have a strong drive to succeed” these people are also looking at the monetary aspects of the success that their discoveries might bring them. There is also a great need for researchers to be transparent and honest about the information they discover instead of not sharing the hazardous risks we could be facing. This I agree is one of the strongest arguments. Because of the many companies that sponsor stem cell research, there is a lot of withheld information coming from researchers and scientists. This makes the public jump to the conclusion that researchers may be withholding dangerous information. The public I believe cannot truly engage in a public discussion on stem cell research until they are accurately informed.
In this journal the authors urge that A National Body should oversee stem cell research transfer studies, stating that gene transfer has been successful in several countries. They urge national authorities to create a similar program for embryotic stem cells. And want another mandatory international registry of studies to be established. The authors want more journals about stem cell research published, in order for the public to be well informed. Claiming that this would “provide a means for scientists, policy-makers, ethics, and the public to remain abreast of ongoing work on cell transplantation”. And last but not least they argue that there should be a panel to create guidelines for stem cell studies. I agree with this largely because we need to persuade the public that what we are doing is humane. This will not only educate the public but set a better standard towards human studies. This experiment is related to my major because it questions and asks us the morality of human life. After researching about stem cell research Using egg/embryos for saving human lives, even after reading this article it still ponders my mind whether we are doing the right thing.