tothesource: What does your new film, Lines That Divide: The Great Stem Cell Debate, have to say about the bioethical issues that are front-and-center in our current national healthcare debates?

Jennifer Lahl: Fundamentally, the bioethical debate is over commodifying human life. We see glimpses of this today as seniors consider the threat of their healthcare being rationed because of their age. There are ethicists and policy advisors who believe that the more years you have lived, the less years you have left to contribute. Therefore, less should be spent on your healthcare. You are only worth what you have left to contribute.

The core issue of using human beings as pure means to an end also surrounds the practice of using embryonic stem cells for research. The haunting question: is it ethical to sacrifice a nascent, tiny human life in order to help find medical cures for others?

Questions such as this grow all the more pressing amid today's healthcare-policy fray. President Obama recently overturned President Bush's restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Some members of the United States congress, such as Diana DeGette, want to allow the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to expire; the amendment prevents the use of federal funds to create human embryos, or to fund research that will harm or destroy a human embryo.

Finally, Francis Collins, whose current support of human cloning and embryonic stem cell research (when using leftover embryos from in-vitro fertilization practices) unfortunately remains in question, has been appointed as the Director of the National Institutes of Health. He is a thoughtful, evangelical Christian, and I am cautiously optimistic about his appointment. He recently stated that he is inclined away from embryonic stem cell research. He needs to fully reject ESCR and all forms of human cloning. As the debates over stem cell research and human cloning come to a head, he thinks it is crucial that the American public be well informed of the issues from the perspectives of science and faith. Collins asserts that it is not only valid, but also essential, that the faith community get involved in this discussion. His position, it seems, corresponds with the goal of the film: to inform Americans so that they can make educated decisions about these issues.

In an immediate sense, the specific motivation to make the film was New York State's recent motion to allow young women to be paid up to $10,000 from state funds for donating their eggs to research. It is deeply troubling to me that states, not just individuals or corporations, are moving toward paying young women to go through egg harvesting, an extremely dangerous medical procedure, so that scientists can create human embryos for research. Evidently there is no more pretending that there are enough “surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization labs that will just be thrown away anyway” to supply for research demands. This is a terrible development. It actually makes me nauseous.

tothesource: How has the film has been received so far?

Lahl: We've shown the film in theaters across the United States, and consistently receive two responses. First, audience members are shocked to discover that adult stem cell research is effectively treating people with medical conditions, such as lupus and multiple sclerosis (MS), right now. The film features several patient success testimonies that resonate powerfully with audiences. Sadly, the success of adult stem cell research has been under-reported in the media, which is why this film is so crucial at this particular moment. As Chuck Colson said, "The film spotlights the breakthroughs being made by adult stem-cell therapy—breakthroughs which are not receiving equal funding or equal media coverage."

Second, audiences are appalled when they learn that young women are currently being exploited for their eggs. Many do not realize that in order for scientists to do embryonic stem cell and cloning research, they need thousands upon thousands of eggs. A common solution: harvesting eggs from young women. Furthermore, people don't know what is actually involved in egg ‘donation'. It's not a simple procedure like donating blood; rather, the woman must take hormones to stimulate her ovaries, then undergo surgery to remove the eggs. There are serious medical risks involved, which comes as shocking news to many viewers since the media has reported very little about the dangers of egg donation.

People from both sides of the stem cell debate have responded positively to the film, especially as a tool for educating people about the issues involved in embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.

tothesource: You've been in the bioethical trenches for years now, writing and speaking about the dangers of egg donation. If you were speaking to a young woman about to head off to college, what would you tell her about egg donation?

Lahl: To this young woman, and to any other young woman considering donating her eggs, I would strongly advise against such a decision.

I would tell her that there have been no studies conducted to reveal these procedures' long-term effects on women. What we do know is that there have been significant cases of women who have donated their eggs and suffered serious medical conditions, such as breast cancer, infertility, and even death.

I would want this woman to know that the healthcare professionals involved in egg donation do not work with her best interests in mind. Their goal is to secure her eggs, and she is simply seen as an instrument. If she gets sick as a result of donating her eggs, few will advocate for her. She is not treated as a patient, meaning that there is no requirement for medical records documenting that she donated her eggs. Right now, there are virtually no laws or regulations protecting women who undergo egg donation. I do not want to see another young woman exploited and endangered for the sake of advancing research.

TLN to air Lines that Divide followed by a panel discussion on September 1, 2009, at 7:00pm CST: Comcast Digital Cable Channel 138 in Illinois
KTLN in San Francisco
KEEN in Las Vegas
Over 200 TLN affiliates across the country (check local listings)
Streamed LIVE on www.tln.com at 7:00pm CST

http://www.linesthatdivide.com/

South Korea Seeks Prison Term for Stem Cell Research Fraud Hwang Woo-suk

"South Korea officials told a court on Monday that they want disgraced embryonic stem cell research scientist Hwang Woo-suk to face four years for allegedly engaging in fraud. Hwang became an international embarrassment after he admitted to faking supposed advances in the science that involves the destruction of human life.

In the studies his team conducted, Hwang claimed to have created the first cloned human embryo and claimed to have created patient-matched embryonic stem cells that would overcome immune system rejection issues.

Those would have been big advances since embryonic stem cells have yet to help a single human patient and have encountered numerous problems when used in animals.

Hwang and some of his top colleagues were indicted in May 2006 by South Korean prosecutors and charged with fraud, embezzlement and violating bioethics rules. He faces potential jail time as a result of allegations of widespread embezzlement of $2.8 million in public research funds.

After getting more than $35 billion in research funds from the government and private donors, South Korean prosecutors say Hwang misused much of the money by laundering it through 63 bank accounts set up under false names.

Prosecutors said Hwang brought shame to the country and harm to scientific research in South Korea, according to a Reuters report.

"The disappointment felt by the (Korean) people is enormous," one prosecutor told the court."
Lifenews.com

http://www.lifenews.com/bio2935.html

US News Health Blogger, Dr. Bernadine Healy, Argues that the Use of Embryonic Stem Cells for Research is Obselete

"Even as the future of embryonic stem cells has dimmed, adult stem cell research has scored major wins evident just in the past few months. These advances involve human stem cells that are not derived from human embryos. In fact, adult stem cells, which occur in small quantities in organs throughout the body for natural growth and repair, have become stars despite great skepticism early on. Though this is a more difficult task, scientists have learned to coax them to mature into many cell types, like brain and heart cells, in the laboratory. (Such stem cells can be removed almost as easily as drawing a unit of blood, and they have been used successfully for years in bone marrow transplants.)

To date, most of the stem cell triumphs that the public hears about involve the infusion of adult stem cells. We've just recently seen separate research reports of patients with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis benefiting from adult stem cell therapy. These cells have the advantage of being the patient's natural own, and the worst they seem to do after infusion is die off without bringing the hoped-for benefit. They do not have the awesome but dangerous quality of eternal life characteristic of embryonic stem cells.

A second kind of stem cell that has triumphed is an entirely new creation called iPS (short for induced pluripotent stem cell), a blockbuster discovery made in late 2007. These cells are created by reprogramming DNA from adult skin. The iPS cells are embryonic-like in that they can turn into any cell in the body—and so bypass the need for embryos or eggs. In late February, scientists reported on iPS cells that had been transformed into mature nerve cells. While these cells might become a choice for patient therapy in time, scientists are playing this down for now. Why? These embryonic-like cells also come with the risk of cancer."

A second kind of stem cell that has triumphed is an entirely new creation called iPS (short for induced pluripotent stem cell), a blockbuster discovery made in late 2007. These cells are created by reprogramming DNA from adult skin. The iPS cells are embryonic-like in that they can turn into any cell in the body—and so bypass the need for embryos or eggs. In late February, scientists reported on iPS cells that had been transformed into mature nerve cells. While these cells might become a choice for patient therapy in time, scientists are playing this down for now. Why? These embryonic-like cells also come with the risk of cancer.

James Thomson, the stem cell pioneer from the University of Wisconsin who was the first to grow human embryonic stem cells in 1998, is an independent codiscoverer of iPS cells along with Japanese scientists. Already these reprogrammed cells have eclipsed the value of those harvested from embryos, he has said, because of significantly lower cost, ease of production, and genetic identity with the patient. They also bring unique application to medical and pharmaceutical research, because cells cultivated from patients with certain diseases readily become laboratory models for developing and testing therapy. That iPS cells overcome ethical concerns about creating and sacrificing embryos is an added plus.

http://health.usnews.com/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/03/04/why-embryonic-stem-cells-are-obsolete.html

Collins Affirms the Need for Religious Community Involvement in Moral Debates over Scientific Research

QUESTION: Do you think there is a role for religious people to play in determining the directions and uses of genetic research?

MR. COLLINS: I think religious people have a critical role to play in making decisions, contributing to the dialogue about what is an ethical use of genetics and what is not. Scientists are not in a unique position to do that at all. And if you ask them, they will tell you that, and they will tell you how uncomfortable they are if people assume that they're going to make those decisions. They can tell you the facts. They can tell you what can be done and what can't be done. And that's really important, because we've had a lot of useless debates about things that can't be done anyway. But when it comes to the things that can be done, and deciding which ought to actually be done, scientists alone are in a very poor position to make those decisions. That requires a broad dialogue, and I think people of faith have a particularly critical role to play there. To do that effectively, of course, they need to be highly informed about the specifics of the science. And I certainly welcome the interest in that particular area that seems to be happening in a number of the churches, but we still have a way to go.

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/coll-frame.html

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.