WALTMAN: Stem cell prohibition hurts UNL's competitiveness

The battle for the future of the University of Nebraska begins.

The anti-abortion group Nebraska Right to Life issued a statement in its October newsletter that there would be a demonstration outside the University of Nebraska regents meeting on Oct. 23.

The issue is stem cell research. After eight years of the regents following a Bush policy, which limited studies to stem cell lines that already exist, we have a new president with new policy.

Nebraska Right to Life is pressing our regents to support a resolution to prohibit expansion of stem cell research under Obama doctrine.

So far the regents are mum on the urgency of such a resolution: Newly elected regent Tim Clare told the Omaha World Herald that stem cell research "may be addressed this month, it may be addressed next month or the month after."

Nevertheless, the issue will be addressed in the near future, and the lines will be drawn for the future of the University of Nebraska as a research vehicle.

If the restrictive policies of the Bush era continue at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, the cutting edge will become the blunt end. Without utilizing these critical research tools, UNMC is destined to fade into national and international obscurity.

Take the words of Dr. Zihai Li of the University of Connecticut Stem Cell Institute, writing in the Atlanta Journal Constitution less than a week ago.

"Cancer and stem cells share many molecular and biological features. By immunizing the host with stem cells, we are able to ‘fool' the immune system to believe that cancer cells are present and thus to initiate a tumor-combating immune program."

Li is talking about a vaccine against cancer here, and a plethora of other medical applications yet to be discovered.

If the regents continue to ignore these leaps in medical advances, UNMC will be crippled in its mission to be at the forefront of treating the sick.

Naturally, any column about stem cell research must address some of the moral facets it presents, most notably the destruction of the embryos to obtain necessary cells and the potential of obtaining stem cells from the umbilical cord.

Stem cell research only utilizes already existing embryos created in-vitro for procedures like uterine transplants. In other words, they are not created in a test tube simply to be destroyed again. We are talking about that which already exists.

And, to be blunt, unused embryos are destined for the trash can. They will either be destroyed or, very hypothetically, can be left as-is in some lab, accumulating to a vast collection over time. There is no womb factory where these organisms — with less biological complexity than mice — can be brought to a state resembling humanity.

The cells taken from the umbilical cord — often proposed as just of viable alternative to stem cells — are indeed medically useful. They treat spinal cord injuries and immune deficiencies with documented success. The problem with restricting research solely to these cells is the relative difficulty in treatment with nonred blood cell-related ailments. Advances in this area continue and may one day serve to sever the need of embryonic stem cell research.

But we live in the here and now. Any research with the potentiality of stem cells can be applied to umbilical cord stem cells if the versatile-use barrier is broken.

Besides umbilical cord stem cells, there is the use of therapeutic cloning of existing stem cells. These cloned embryos stand virtually no chance to survive to adulthood (as most clones don't). Two years ago, MSNBC columnist Dr. Arthur Caplan stated that virtually every embryo created by therapeutic cloning has a miniscule chance of surviving past infancy.