This paper examines the debate surrounding embryonic stem cell research in the context of Michigan's Proposal 2, a 2008 ballot initiative that sought to amend state law prohibiting such research. Drawing on news reporting and scientific commentary, the paper outlines the distinct capabilities of embryonic versus adult stem cells, surveys the wide range of potential medical applications — including treatments for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, paralysis, and organ transplantation — and explains how excess IVF embryos represent a valuable and largely wasted research resource. The paper concludes that while Proposal 2 was a necessary step, broader federal policy change would be required to fully unlock stem cell science's medical promise.
In October 2008, Michigan was preparing for a statewide vote on the issue of embryonic stem cell research. Proposal 2 concerned an amendment to Michigan state law that at the time prohibited any research use of embryonic stem cells. Michigan was one of the few states that actually prohibited embryonic stem cell research; the proposal, if passed on November 4, 2008, would permit the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes allowed under federal law (Hornstein, 2008; Satyanarayana, 2008).
Under federal law, embryonic stem cell research could not be funded with federal money, but such research was not illegal. Critics of that distinction pointed out that the federal funding ban achieved almost the same practical effect as an outright prohibition, simply because medical research of this type is far too expensive for private institutions to conduct independently and relies nearly entirely on federal funding (Kinsley, 2007). Most states did not actually prohibit privately funded stem cell research, but Michigan specifically outlawed some of the most potentially beneficial medical research in the field of modern medicine.
Stem cells were first discovered to possess the ability to develop into almost any other form of human tissue approximately ten years before this debate (Satyanarayana, 2008). Since then, the Bush administration had taken up arguments put forth mainly on religious grounds against research into their medical applications, resulting in a complete ban on the use of federal funds for all fetal and embryonic stem cell research (Kinsley, 2007; Pollack, 2007).
Human stem cells come in several different varieties with different degrees of capability in terms of medical applications. While adult stem cells can be extracted from the bone marrow of adult patients, the biopsy procedures are considerably uncomfortable and not without risk (Talan, 2007). More importantly, adult stem cells possess only limited potential in comparison with fetal stem cells, which can be extracted from legally aborted fetuses or from umbilical cord blood or placental tissues discarded after live births (Kinsley, 2007; Pollack, 2007).
The likely benefits of stem cell research — particularly embryonic stem cell research — are so numerous that they read almost like a wish list for medical researchers.
Current evidence strongly suggests that the applications of stem cell science could eradicate many untreatable human diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Cystic Fibrosis, Diabetes, Sickle Cell Anemia, and Tay-Sachs Disease (Talan, 2007).
Other applications will likely allow neurologists to restore mobility and sensation to victims of traumatic paralysis, including thousands of people injured every year in motor vehicle and swimming pool accidents, as well as American soldiers wounded on the battlefield. Experiments on paralyzed laboratory animals have already demonstrated the viability of this application in principle (Talan, 2007).
Some of the most remarkable potential uses of human stem cells include the construction of complete human organs for autogenic transplant (Kinsley, 2007). Currently, thousands of American patients die every year while waiting on organ donor transplant lists before a suitable donor organ becomes available. Even when patients are fortunate enough to receive a donor organ, the risk of rejection requires the lifetime use of powerful anti-rejection drugs that suppress the immune system, leaving recipients extremely vulnerable to other diseases and infections — and at tremendous ongoing cost.
The prospect of extracting DNA from a patient for combination with embryonic stem cells offers these patients the chance to live normal lives, because organs developed in this manner contain only the patient's own tissues. More importantly, this particular use of stem cell technology could spare the lives of the vast majority of organ recipients who currently die each year before a suitable organ is found for them (Kinsley, 2007; Pollack, 2007).
"How IVF produces excess embryos for research"
"What the proposal permits and prohibits"
According to all the published research currently available, stem cell science probably represents the most significant breakthrough in the entire field of modern medicine, certainly since the discovery of antibiotics.
You’re 56% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.