Fishy Stem Cell Media Reports

By Mary Beth Bonacci
HERALD Columnist
(From the issue of 4/11/02)

I’m not a doctor. I don’t even play one on TV. Neither am I a scientist or a researcher. But I read an article recently about how some so-called "scientists" and "researchers" are distorting the stem cell debate. So I did a little further research on the subject. I want to pass on what I’ve learned. If a layperson like myself could understand the issues involved, I figured you all could too.

And remember, I’m a writer, not a scientist.

Background: I’m sure you’ve been hearing frequently, as we all have, about new advances in stem cell research. From what I understand, these undifferentiated human cells have the ability to divide and to "turn into" specialized human cells — brain cells, blood cells, skin cells, etc. Obviously, this type of cell reproduction could have tremendous ramifications for the treatment of a myriad of conditions, which are caused by the death or disruption of existing cells.

Wonderful as this all sounds, there are a few problems. Many are practical problems, but the larger problem is ethical.

Where do we find these stem cells? Stem cells have been found in adult bone marrow, skin, organs and blood. These cells are collected by taking samples of the tissue in question, then isolating and harvesting the cells. This type of procedure causes no harm to the human donor.

Stem cells are also found in human fetuses. These very young human persons, in early stages of development, are full of embryonic stem cells, which will divide and develop into the tissues and organs necessary to sustain life.

How are these fetal stem cells harvested? There are two ways. The first is to extract them from the "overstock," as it were, of in vitro fertilizations. When more eggs are fertilized than a couple is willing to carry to term, tiny little human persons — who would need nothing but shelter and nutrition to grow into full-term babies — are left in a sort of "suspended animation." Researchers simply "crack them open," remove their inner cells and discard the rest. The second source of embryonic stem cells is aborted fetuses, which are obtained from abortionists, harvested and likewise discarded.

This creates a serious ethical problem. How can we save one set of lives at the expense of another set of lives? How could we possibly find any relief in a cure, knowing that a life of a growing, developing human being was unjustly snuffed out in order to extract the necessary parts?

And how can we justify any of this when we can extract adult stem cells while doing no harm at all to the donor?

Recently, however, I’ve read several articles claiming that adult stem cells may not be as promising as fetal cells. "What a disappointment," I thought.

Which brings us to the article I mentioned earlier. Entitled "Covering Up the Promise of Adult Stem Cells," it was written by Michael Fumento, and appeared last month in the National Review (03/28/02). Fumento was responding to a series of letters, written by research teams and published in Nature magazine, which claimed that adult stem cells might be worthless.

How did these researchers reach this conclusion? They placed adult stem cells (NES) from mice marrow and brains into petri dishes with embryonic stem cells (ES). They found that the adult cells took on the characteristics of mature cells, but only because they fused with the embryonic cells.

These results were apparently the sole basis for the rash of "adult stem cells are useless" news stories I’ve encountered recently.

Unfortunately, the research was flawed. Badly.

According to Fumento, "The NES cells did just what the researchers knew they would and their results have no practical application."

This is a "duh" moment, even for a non-scientist like me. Of course the adult stem cells fused to the embryonic stem cells. That’s what they do. They fuse to nearby cells, and become that kind of cell. They assume the characteristics of surrounding tissues, and repair them. That’s why they become brain cells in the brain, white or red blood cells in the blood, etc. They won’t become embryonic stem cells inside the patient’s body, because there aren’t any embryonic stem cells floating around in there.

The fact, according to Fumento, is that "research to date appears
to show that NES cells are superior in virtually every way except that — or so ES-cell research proponents claim — ES cells have far greater potential to ‘differentiate’ into a vastly greater number of useful mature
cells." In other words, a single embryonic cell can "turn into" a greater variety of cell types. But "scientists are discovering adult stem cells in virtually every part of the body they look . . . [and] they're finding they can convert each of these into many other types of cells. Fat stem cells, for example, have
been made into cartilage, blood and bone cells, but also into mature fat cells."

Why are stem cell proponents so desperate to hide the potential of adult stem cells? Why are they so determined that only embryonic cells be considered useful? I honestly don’t know the answer to that. But I do know that, when it comes to stem cell research, you shouldn’t believe everything you read in the popular media. Because it doesn’t take a scientist to figure out that there’s something fishy going on here.

Bonacci is a frequent lecturer on chastity.

Copyright ©2002 Arlington Catholic Herald.  All rights reserved.