|
|
Columns::January 22, 2002
Reaching out: Strategic plan for campus diversity efforts drafted
Bob Boehmer to coordinate strategic planning, assessment
Civil War scholar will deliver Charter Lecture
Undergrad apprentice program introduces freshmen to research
Social work professor pens book about civil rights foot soldier
Held in high (self) esteem
Campus Closeup
Kudos
Vet medicine holds annual white-coat ceremony
Common Concerns
Campus News
Ethics at the edges
By Alex Crevar
Steve Stice, Georgia Research Alliance Eminent Scholar, who produced the first cloned rabbit in 1987, plays a pivotal role in stem-cell research. UGA is one of only four sites nationally and 10 internationally to possess stem-cell lines approved for
 |
| Steven Stice |
federal research funding.
Stice manages UGAs stem-cell lines, which can be manipulated to produce any type of cell. He is investigating ways to induce embryonic stem cells to become primate neural cells. This phase of his research is targeted at Parkinsons disease and could be ready for clinical trials in the next five years. He discussed the implications and uses of cloning and stem-cell research with the assistant editor of Georgia Magazine for the magazine and Columns.
Columns: How did UGA become a stem-cell site?
Stice: Im vice president for human stem-cell research at BresaGen Inc., a company that holds four of the worlds cell lines. With my help--and that of the Georgia Research Alliance and the Department of Industry, Trade, and Tourism--BresaGen moved here from Australia and set up a unique partnership with the University of Georgia. BresaGen was one of the groups that had contact with the National Institutes of Health, which advised President Bush prior to his stem-cell announcement in August.
Columns: Michael F. Adams is among the 100 college and university presidents who signed a letter urging the Bush administration to maintain funding for stem-cell research. Why is it important for UGA to possess these stem-cell lines?
Stice: The idea is that BresaGen will supply the cells from those lines to other universities. But Georgia is in a unique position because the cell lines are here, and one of the biggest difficulties with stem-cell research is just being able to grow them. Having a lab here--just down the hall from my office--is a great advantage for UGA versus Harvard, which would have to send off for a cell line and a recipe of how to grow them. Theyd have to reinvent a lot of the wheel themselves. Also, when NIH looks to fund a university, they will fund the one that has access to the technology.
Columns: There are 64 stem cell lines in the world. Is that enough?
Stice: It is and it isnt. One line of embryonic stem cells can be grown forever, as opposed to a skin cell that will eventually die off. But at some point, we will need more than 64 lines because the way we culture them today may not be the most beneficial way of culturing them for eventual clinical trials. We currently use animal cells (mouse) to help maintain stem cells, and, because of the cross contamination between mouse and human, that would not be the most beneficial way. Well need lines that have never touched a mouse cell. Were fine till we get to the point of clinical trials, and then there will be a major push to derive new cell lines. Thats about two years away.
Columns: Whats your stance on the morality of using human embryonic tissue for research and treatment of disease?
Stice: I think its more morally acceptable to use those embryos to produce embryonic stem cells than to throw them down the drain. The issue is where people believe human life begins and ends. Thats where people have problems when you use embryos to produce a cell line. George Annas, from Boston University, made a good point that put the subject into perspective to me. He asked a group of scientists to imagine a tank of frozen embryos in one corner of a room and a five-year-old child in the other corner. When a fire breaks out, who or what do you save first? The answer is obvious--we dont view embryos in the same light as a five-year-old child.
Columns: Whats your stance on cloning human beings?
Stice: If a human is cloned, the world wouldnt end--but I am not an advocate because I see no benefits in doing it. There is great potential in cloning cows, for instance, for producing pharmaceuticals in their milk. But I see no benefits for people. First, the expectations of little Johnny being the same as the original would be too high. Next, what of the medical questions if the baby is born with an abnormality? And, as with cows, only one of seven fertilized eggs goes all the way to birth, and we lose some late-term. Bottom line: People who think they can bring back a son or daughter are missing the point--the clone is not going to be the same as the original.
Columns: Why are people both fascinated and repulsed by the idea of human cloning?
Stice: A lot of the fascination exists because of science fiction and the movies, which make us look like mad scientists--much different from what we really are. People are scared of human cloning because it brings up the thought of cloning an army of Hitlers.
Columns: Are scientists like Severino Antinori and Panayiotis Zavo, both advocates of human cloning, just quacks?
Stice: Regardless of who attempts it, between the money and time needed, cloning a human would be a daunting task. I am in no way encouraging it, but the science is there--it could happen.
But I believe the people mentioned dont have a firm footing in the science. They are more about how they can get on the CBS Evening News.
|
|
|
|
|