A former state legislator who favors mature stem-cell research as strongly as she opposes embryonic stem cell research spoke Tuesday evening at the first program of the Society of Emporians Exploring Key Issues (SEEK).
Program leader Vi Heskett said that the group had been organized after the last general election to help people become better informed.
Mary Pilcher Cook of Shawnee, who served two separate terms as representative from the 18th district, told the audience of approximately 25 people that “there are some good things happening with stem cell research today.”
Cook has a master’s degree in finance and a long-term interest in science.
She said that non-embryonic research — using mature stem cells found in umbilical cords, for example, rather than stem cells from embryos — has produced successful human therapies for 72 diseases, and that number is growing.
“Almost every week there’s another exciting breakthrough with stem cells,” Cook said.
The adult or mature stem cells are less likely to be rejected and their development into appropriate specialized cells is more likely than stem cells from embryos.
Mature stem cells can be gleaned from bone marrow, placentas, fat, muscle, skin and other parts of the body, she said.
“Every organ that you have has stem cells,” Cook said. “...Adult stem cells are easier to control than embryonic stem cells.”
Mature stem cell research is promising to develop effective therapies for Parkinson’s disease, leukemia, paralysis and other threatening diseases or conditions.
On the other hand, she said, treatments using embryonic stem cells have not been successful, primarily because of the rejection and the difficulties that have arisen because the embryonic stem cells are too immature to differentiate the direction in which they need to develop.
The need to continue research is a personal one for Cook.
“We have Huntington’s disease in my family,” she said. “Each of my kids has a 50-50 chance” of contracting the disease. She likened it to having Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis simultaneously, and added that those who suffer from Huntington’s have a far higher suicide rate than the general population. The father of her children committed suicide, she said. The disease usually strikes the victim around the age of 35. Cook’s oldest daughter is 30.
“So do I want a cure?” she asked rhetorically. “You’d better believe I want a cure. And do I want it fast? You’d better believe it.”
Cook does not want the cure, however, at the expense of embryos and their stem cells, nor does she believe that the answer lies there.
She said that embryotic cells “can’t decide what they want to be” when introduced as treatment: They may form tumors made of bone, teeth, or hair; they cause difficulties in obtaining pure cultures; they are genetically unstable; and they provoke immune reactions that cause the cells to be rejected.
Adult stem cells can be a genetic copy of the person being treated.
“They’re taking the stem cells from the same body that needs treatment,” Cook said. “If they can’t use their own, then they use umbilical cords. They are less likely to reject.”
The greater successes that have been achieved with mature stem cells makes it sensible for scientists to focus on that research rather than continue with embryonic stem cell research, she said.
Although federal funds will not be available to conduct embryonic research, Cook said that private foundations are not precluded from that and there is potential for those involved to benefit greatly because of the financial windfall that may come from patents they could obtain on the stem cells.
“It’s the nature of science to want to have freedom to experiment with anything with complete freedom,” Cook said. “...The big question that we’ve never answered is when does that human being have intrinsic value.”
Cook contended that science long ago defined the beginning of life, and that definition gave Constitutional protection to the zygote cell created when egg and sperm unite.
Cook said, however, that scientific terms have been altered to make some facets of stem cell research more palatable to the public, and cited “pre-embryo” as one of the examples of terms being used at K.U. Medical Center to refer to the cells that will be used for scientific research.
“You don’t (define) something different based on what you’re going to do with it,” Cook said. “Whether you’re going to make an apple pie or an apple streusel, it’s still an apple.”
Cook objects to the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) that is being used by many scientists.
(The Association of American Medical Colleges web site defines SCNT, or therapeutic cloning, as “removing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg cell, replacing it with the material from the nucleus of a ‘somatic cell’ (a skin, heart, or nerve cell, for example) and stimulating this cell to begin dividing. Once the cell begins dividing, stem cells can be extracted 5-6 days later and used for research.” The AAMC supports SCNT and recommends a ban on all forms of reproductive cloning.)
Cook said that Dolly, the sheep cloned in 1997, was “manufactured” in much the same way as SCNT. In Japan, work is progressing on creating an artificial womb, and work is underway on liquid respirators that could be helpful for premature infants. She said she was concerned that DNA materials from animals will be put into humans, and vice-versa.
“We have to draw a line somewhere,” Cook said.
Using eggs drawn from women for SCNT research should be a cause for concern among women, she said.
“Women need to be concerned because they need a lot of them,” Cook said. “It can be highly exploitive of them.”
Cook said that students at K.U. told her they had been offered $8,000 for their eggs.
Instead of focusing on embryonic stem cell research, scientists and legislators need to focus on mature stem cells, she said.
“Put it where it should be — with adult stem cell research,” she said. “Let’s stick with the proven successful research and where there’s no controversy involved.”
furtuna (anonymous) says...
Hello Mrs. Mary Pilcher Cook,
Go back to your finance job and let the scientists to decide what is best for the science and suffering people.
There are a lot of idiots posing as scientists. Please do not be another one.
Sincerely,
Cornell Furtuna
March 7, 2007 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
furtuna (or anyone), why, exactly, is this bad?
And, fwiw, are you aware that embryonic stem cell research (and findings) actually happens from embyos that CANNOT be used as a viable form of life? In other words, the embryos that are used (can be used) for stem cell research come from jars up on a shelf, so to speak. It's not as if they're taking a human embryo that is viable and using it for research, just so you know.
Why anyone would be opposed to finding cures for so many diseases? It baffles me.
M
March 7, 2007 at 10:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cootv (anonymous) says...
The American public has been conned by academics and scientists and media about the pseudo-science called embryonic stem cells. There is $100billion of taxpayers' money out there and that is the real reason for the fraud.
The first embryonic cells were isolated in Wisconsin by James Thomson in 1998. At a public speech soon thereafter, he said "...it's going to be very long and it's likely to take a long time." When pressed by an AP reporter as to how much time, he answered "Decades."
Personally, I think he was optimistic. Decades means at least 20 years, which means 2018. The first nine years have produced little more than thousands of dead rats. At the present moment here is the score (worldwide--so don't blame Bush):
Number of human clinical trials completed or ongoing using adult stem cells as of 12/31/2006: 1300++
Number of human clinical trials completed or ongoing using embryonic stem cells as of 12/31/2006: 0
cootv
March 8, 2007 at 1:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
situveux1 (anonymous) says...
According to Time Magazine on a front cover page story in 2006, it would take 10-20 times the number of embryonic cells currently in storage in the world to successfully complete embryonic stem cell research trials that would then lead to successful treatment of humans. In other words, if scientists want to complete successful trials of embryonic cells so they can treat humans, they would have to get more cells to use...which is why women are being offered $8000 for their eggs.
It scares me that women would be treated as factories rather than patients. They're not really patients because they aren't being treated for anything and their not clients because they're being paid and not receiving a service, so what does that make them? It makes the factories. That scares me. If it doesn't scare you and you still continue to have a blind faith in a particular scientific research that has yet to yield any results, then there isn't anything I can say that will convince you otherwise.
Which side is ignorant?
March 8, 2007 at 10:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hjcary (anonymous) says...
I don't know why "scientists" think they need to kill children for "science" when there are so many mature stem cells (from umbilical cords) that they are being thrown away. My friend and I donated our umbilical cord blood from our first pregnancies but when we inquired about doing the same for her second pregnancy and my last three we were told no they have no need there is an over abundance. The stem cells from umbilical cords could be used for thousands of things between science or helping a leukemia patient etc or get thrown away. Let’s use what we have that does not end a life of a child instead of spending tax dollars to kill. That is just my two cents even if a person does not believe that killing a developing baby is murder it is controversial and using the mature cells from umbilical cord blood is not controversial so just do that and not have all the fighting over ethical issues.
March 9, 2007 at 11:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )