Stem cell research

The ethics of stem cell research has reached a level of final mutation. The questionable work ethic of Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk in cloning Snuppy has, contrary to sceptical opinion, served to unify the cacophony of global researchers into two practically divergent groups—those opposed to the ethics of using embryonic cells who want it stopped, and those in favour of research who agree it requires an ethical way in which to proceed. Devotees of the pragmatism will agree that that leaves us with only one way forward—find that elusive ethical path.

The reason for urging this clarity is simple—putting an end to the possibilities of a solution that may emerge from stem cell research contradicts scientific temperament. Given advancements in medical science, and the hope of many suffering from degenerative terminal diseases, suggesting ceasing research is akin to shutting the door on the unseen cure. While scientists are made to grope with justifying the ends, it is the means that are the dubious area that recent controversy has served to highlight.

Science magazine, like other luminary counterparts in the world of published research, used tried and tested means of testing—including peer reviews and rigorous data analysis. The one loophole it failed in is questioning the source or authenticity of collected and presented data. The simplest solution—to examine the individual researcher’s credentials and ethic—is not the ideal solution. It is primarily the system that makes published research a high stakes game, involving billions of dollars worth of funding and patents annually, leave alone credit and kudo rewards that is the culprit here.

In the high stakes game of stem cell research, India is categorised as a ‘permissive’ nation ie one where almost no policies are in place for the research. The LV Prasad Eye Institute in Hyderabad is one of the earliest to have used stem cell research in treatment. Ajit Jogi kicked up a global research uproar when he revealed his paralysis was improving when treated with stem cell medical advancements conducted by Delhi-based doctor Geeta Shroff. That the UK is also classified ‘permissive’ does not however absolve us of accountability for the classification but holds our checks and balances up to formidable comparison. While the lack of religious fundamentalists objecting to continuing scientific research has proven a boon to the progress of the stream in India, we must guard against the lack of its inherent checks and balances. India needs a stringent policy against the quack-shop or fly-by-night research station.

Given the current lack of guidelines, the role of the media in touting the success of Snuppy especially needs to be discretionary. As research advances, rushing to get the scoop on petrol from water is one thing, but offering up hope to thousands of terminally ill across the globe is quite another. Indian research journals need to work overtime not only to authenticate information before waking up to the hungry hack, but, to ensure the death of the spurious cell, let the media know who’s word is law in the gene pool.