Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Stem Cell Research War Rages

Aired July 15, 2001 - 09:12   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: What's the stem cell war all about? Well, we can tell you that the battleground is diverse; it's religious, ethical, scientific and political. And at the center of the battle, embryonic stem cells. Those are cells that have the potential to grow into any cell or tissue in the human body.

Well, what does that mean? Possible cures to life-threatening diseases and devastating illnesses.

Three advisers in this battle join us this morning from Washington; Dr. John McDonald, neurologist and stem cell researcher at Washington University's School of Medicine; from the University of Minnesota, our CNN.com BIOETHICS columnist, Dr. Jeffrey Kahn; and Dr. David Stevens joins us from Chicago. He is the executive director of the Christian Medical Association. Gentlemen, good to see you.

JEFFREY KAHN, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Thanks for having us.

JOHN MCDONALD, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: Good morning.

DAVID STEVENS, CHRISTIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION: Nice to be with you.

PHILLIPS: Let's begin. Great to talk about this subject.

Dr. McDonald, you're in the trenches of this battle. Tell us what science knows right now and what could be cured and how.

MCDONALD: So, right now, there is a great deal of effort pushing forward with stem cells as a whole, both derived from the central nervous system as well as embryonic stem cells.

Currently, the studies that have shown the most promise, that is of showing behavioral benefits in animal models, have actually been with mouse embryonic stem cells, and they've been able to restore partial function in animals that have spinal cord injuries and other injuries as well. So...

PHILLIPS: Parkinson's, diabetes -- name a couple of these diseases, also, that we're talking about.

MCDONALD: Sure, yeah. So, cellular replacement will be important for a lot of different nervous system injuries, including Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and maybe even more important for things outside the nervous system, such as diabetes, replacement of cartilage, damaged heart tissue and liver.

PHILLIPS: So, Dr. Stevens, where does your opposition lie and tell me why?

STEVENS: Well, this isn't about whether we do stem cell research or not. In fact, our 15,000 doctors that make up the Christian Medical Association are very pro-stem cell research. We think it holds enormous potential for medicine. In fact, our organization began in 1931 before antibiotics, and we think stem cells are going to be kind of like antibiotics, what they did for medicine. It's going to revolutionize it.

The question is, where do we get the stem cells? Do we take them from embryos or do we get them from other sources, including umbilical cord blood, placenta and adult cells that all of us have in our bodies? And our position is, is that we should opt for the course of using adult, umbilical cord stem cells or another ethical source and not sacrifice human life to get stem cells.

PHILLIPS: Dr. McDonald, what's the difference and the pros and cons about -- between embryonic and adult stem cell research?

MCDONALD: Yeah. Just to clarify the issue, I think the issue is not, you know, whether we should use embryos or not use embryos, the issue here being put forth is really can we move forward using human embryonic stem cells, some of which have already been derived. And we have other methods of deriving them that don't require going to an embryo.

As far as the different sources of the stem cells, you can get stem cells from multiple different tissues, but it is the embryonic stem cell is the earliest form of stem cell. If you think of stem cells as a tree, they're the trunk. They're capable of going down every branch.

However, umbilical, CNS-derived stem cells, stem cells derived from blood are already down one branch and can't necessarily come back and go down every other branch. There is some early evidence that they can undergo some trans-differentiation, but that evidence is very, very early.

However, it has been shown that the ES-cells can go down all these branches.

PHILLIPS: Dr. Stevens, isn't more better? In a situation...

STEVENS: Well, I don't think it is. If we have two opportunities to do research; one requires the killing of human beings and one does not require the killing of human beings, it would seem to me that the best thing to do is to follow the ethical course.

This is a huge change in the course of medicine. What is happening here is we're saying that the Nerenberg Code, which tells us about how we do research with human beings, the European Council Convention on Human Rights, the AMA guidelines on dealing with human subjects, all those things we're going to shuck because it is OK now to take the life of a human being for the benefit of another person.

We've never done that in the history of medicine, and the only time that it has been done, we've gotten into enormous problems. And I hate to see that happen again, because once we move through this barrier, there is no logical place to draw the line.

PHILLIPS: Dr. Kahn, Dr. Stevens is mentioning this ethical course. Let's talk about that. Let's define that and also, do you see any common ground here?

KAHN: I think it is going to be very hard to find a middle ground as people have described it. And I think it depends on how we come down on a very basic question, which is what are -- what is the moral status of a human embryo.

Dr. Stevens has been mentioning we don't do research without consent; we don't use one human being for the good of another. But that presumes that we think human embryos have the same moral status as those of us who are having this conversation today. And I don't think that that is a decision that we are ready to take, certainly not as a society, at least. And there are people across a wide diversity of the spectrum thinking that those cells are everything from similar to the kind you might scrape off of the inside of your cheek all the way through the idea that they're just like you and me.

And so I think we have to answer that question first, because in answer to that we can then determine what policy is acceptable or not.

PHILLIPS: What about all the frozen embryos in fertility clinic freezers that are thrown out, I believe it is annually? Is there any potential good with these? Dr. Kahn?

KAHN: Well, right, that's one of the sources that are, I think, in some contention. There is, by estimate, and we don't really know because this is all in the private sector, something like 200,000 frozen embryos around the world. They don't really have much use except for the people who have them created for reproductive purposes. So, they can use them to have more children, potentially, or they can discard them. It is their right under current policy and law. They can donate them to research or they can donate them to another couple who might need them to try to have a child of their own.

But we really don't have solid policy about what the status of those embryos might be, what can be done with them, ethically. They certainly have a lot of potential for the kind of embryonic stem cell research that Dr. McDonald has been describing.

So, there is a potential source there. Most people think those are more ethically acceptable to use than would be creating human embryos for the purpose of embryonic stem cell research, and we've heard about that just this week, in fact. Two different companies, one a clinic in Virginia and one a company, a biotech company in Boston, have said they are making embryos or cloning embryos for the purpose of the embryonic stem cells that they contain. So, we have a distinction to make once we agree that human embryos are an appropriate source, whether they are frozen embryos in reproductive medicine clinic are more acceptable than those that are created, or none at all.

PHILLIPS: Gentlemen, I'm going to ask you please, all three, to stand by. We are receiving a number of e-mails. We're going to take a quick break, come back and try to answer all of them.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIPS: We're talking about stem cell research. Three doctors are joining us this morning. Once again, I want to introduce them. We have Dr. John McDonald from Washington, neurologist and stem cell researcher at Washington University School of Medicine. Also, from the University of Minnesota, our CNN.com BIOETHICS columnist Dr. Jeffrey Kahn and Dr. David Stevens. He joins us from Chicago. He is the executive director of the Christian Medical Association.

Gentlemen, we're going to get right into the e-mails. We've received a number of them. This one comes from Dale Friesen. His question is, "Don't stem cells attain life when planted into the receiver of treatment? Could this idea belie the religious ground for opposing this sort of medical advance"?

STEVENS: Well, I think one thing we need to understand is we're talking about human beings. Now, you can talk about, debate about personhood, but there is no doubt that these are humans. They have a human genome. They're not pigs, they're not monkeys, they are humans. There is no doubt that they are beings, they are alive and they have existence.

And so, the constitution says very clearly that every man is created with certain inalienable rights and among those is life. And we can't do any greater harm to a human being than take their life, to take their future away from them.

PHILLIPS: Dr. McDonald?

MCDONALD: I agree with that, you know, that, you know, no one wants to take anyone's life. In fact, perhaps the issue is not completely understood. It is possible to derive ES-cells without taking life in any shape, form or manner under anyone's belief. That is, from a blastocyst a cell can be derived and that blastocyst can still go on to make a normal organism. It's possible to derive embryonic stem cells through fertilized cow eggs.

The potential, the genetic potential of making the being through nuclear transfer is possible with skin cells, so perhaps even shaving then, under your rules, is sacrificing life as well. But it is possible to disassociate these two arguments. In my belief, use of embryonic stem cells and federal funding for that does not require taking the life in any shape, form or manner.

KAHN: Can I add something to that too?

PHILLIPS: Go ahead, Dr. Kahn.

KAHN: I think we should be very clear about the stage at which these embryos are in their development, and this is a very, very early stage in development. If an embryo were to be created in the normal way, through a man and a woman procreating, many embryos that made it to this stage would never make it through into a fetus in the uterus and an eventual child.

So, we're not talking about a late stage. It is an extremely early, early stage of development that you can't even see with your naked eye, and I think we have to distinguish whether other embryos at this state would ever make it into a grown child. And the answer is I think that's certainly questionable at best.

PHILLIPS: (INAUDIBLE).

STEVENS: Are we going to take federal dollars though and sanction age discrimination? It's based on the age of a human being whether they can be killed or not? I think that's an important issue, and the fact that these embryos, many of them will die natural deaths, is not an excuse.

Let me give an analogy and explain that. If I have a neighbor who is dying of cancer, it's one thing if they die of cancer. It's another thing if I go over to their house and kill them. And that's what we're talking about. These embryos may die a natural death. They may never be implanted, but there is a huge moral difference and I think Dr. Kahn, as a bioethicist, knows this, between someone actually taking their life.

And that's what we're saying we can do with federal dollars.

MCDONALD: Dr. Stevens, I don't think this is what we're discussing here at all today. In fact, I mean, are you against the use of embryonic stem cells that have already been derived? And if an embryos, so a two-day 100 cell embryo, is already decided to be thrown away, so that decision has already been made, is it wrong to use one cell from that embryo that is going to be thrown away, that otherwise would not change that embryo, that embryo could still be used to make a viable baby. Is it wrong to take that one cell? That's what we're talking about.

KAHN: I would just add, too, that we don't count people's age from the time the embryo is fertilized, we count from the time that they are born. So there is a distinction here, Dr. Stevens. You need to acknowledge that your view is not shared by everybody.

STEVENS: Well, I agree it's not shared by everybody. We wouldn't be having this debate. But...

MCDONALD: But that's not the decision. I mean, the issue is not when life begins. We're not talking in any shape, form or manner of taking life. Period. So let's not talk about that.

STEVENS: Well, if these blastocysts -- I think we should. Because I think that's the key moral issue. Blastocysts normally sacrificed to get the cell lines and there is also...

MCDONALD: No, no. That is not -- that is not necessarily true. That does not need to happen.

PHILLIPS: I'm going to step in, gentlemen. I'm going to bring another e-mail to you, OK? I think we've definitely made all our points here.

This comes from Rob Hallock in New York: "Science has finally come to the point of being able to solve some of society's most daunting disease and politics is threatening the breakthroughs."

STEVENS: Well, I'd made one comment on that. Adult stem cells do hold a lot of potential and I know Dr. McDonald has done some breakthrough work with embryonic stem cells in neural cord damage. But there is also some excellent studies that show, for example, in mice, just like he was working with, where they took some pancreatic stem cells from the pancreatic ducts. They worked with those in the lab and culture and planted them under the skin of the mice as they begin to secrete insulin and they reverse diabetes in mice, completely.

The same study was done with embryonic stem cells and they only got one percent of the insulin that was needed. There is an excellent study looking at stroke in rats, where what they did is actually take umbilical cord cells and had them differentiate into pre-neuron cells, injected them intravenously into the rats and the rats stroke got much better. In fact, healing took place much quicker.

So, there are good studies to show that we have another path. We don't have to use embryonic stem cells.

KAHN: I think the e-mailer raises a great point, though, about the political debate that is going on and I think most of us would agree that there is a lot of political considerations being brought into the conversation, but we also need to hear from the perspective of science, the perspective of ethics, the perspective of religion. And we shouldn't make decisions based only on their political implications.

My personal view is the best way to get control of this from a federal regulatory standpoint is to fund it, because with federal funding comes federal control. So, in fact, if we say no funding, we push this into the private sector in a way that we really have no oversight. So, we should be careful what we wish for.

PHILLIPS: Gentlemen, on that note, the battle continues. Ethics, politics, religion and science. It'll be interesting to see what the president does decide with regard to federal funding. I have no doubt we'll be discussing this again.

Dr. John McDonald, Dr. David Stevens and Dr. Jeffrey Kahn, thank you gentlemen, very much.

MCDONALD: Thank you.

KAHN: Thank you.

PHILLIPS: We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com