| In
his new book The Immortal Cell, Dr. Michael West describes the
meaning of cellular immortality and the implications of the “time
machine” of therapeutic cloning for life extension. The following
interview with Dr. West was conducted by Dr. Gregory M. Fahy.
Life Extension: Dr. West, your
book is not about one subject, but many. It’s the story of how the biology of immortality
may eventually conquer the biology of aging, and what happens when
science moves faster than political and religious leaders can accept.
It’s an impassioned philosophical statement about life, death,
and immortality. What was your purpose in writing it?
Dr. Michael West: I wanted to communicate why stem cell technology
is so important from both a scientific and a personal point of
view. On the science side, I hoped to communicate the excitement
of the research community about the embryonic stem cell—the
immortal cell, a cell capable of branching into any of the cell
types in the body and effectively treating today’s “incurable” conditions,
including aging. On the personal side, I can imagine the day when
thousands of people with various diseases, particularly age-related
diseases, can benefit from these discoveries.
LE: What impact do you think
the book may have in promoting greater understanding of and public
support for therapeutic cloning?
MW: My hope is that the book will explain why scientists working
in the field are so impassioned about moving the technology forward
rapidly—why, from our perspective, therapeutic cloning is
an ethical and appropriate use of technology. There’s been
so much disinformation circulated by the opposition that I think
it’s important to clearly voice what we see as the facts,
to allow readers to make up their own minds as to where they stand
on the issue.
LE: In your book you
say that embryonic stem cell research is going to “unleash
one of the fiercest battles between religion and science in
recent history.”
MW: I think the backlash in the religious community stems from
one primary and one less significant reason. The primary reason
is that this is seen as fresh ground to fight over in the abortion
debate. The abortion debate, at least in the U.S., has been largely
stalemated. Now enters the embryonic stem cell. These cells come
from the embryo when it is still a microscopic ball of cells that
has not yet begun to develop, has not attached to the uterus, and
is not a pregnancy. The “pro-life” community sees this
as an opportunity to win the abortion debate. If they could cause
a new law to be passed that would ban the use or production of
cells from pre-implantation embryos, then they would have achieved
a checkmate in the abortion debate, because if the pre-implantation
embryo has a right to life and cannot be destroyed, then certainly
a developing fetus in a woman’s uterus—an actual developing
human being—could not be destroyed for any purpose either.
A second reason I think some members of the religious community have attacked
embry-onic stem cell technologies is use of the word “immortal.” By “immortal,” we
mean that these cells are not programmed to age and can replicate indefinitely.
They have potential immortality in that they’re part of the reproductive
lineage of cells that connects the generations. This is the result of the nearly
magical ability of germ-line cells to escape the inevitable aging of the body.
In my book I call the germ-line cell the immortal cell. But use of the word “immortal” to
describe these cells at the root of the immortal substratum of life, and to
envision their use to fight the eternal battle against aging and death, may
seem to intrude into what has historically been the province of religion. This
talk about science potentially being able to extend the life span, or even
about the possibility of immortality itself, is threatening to some people.
 |
LE: It doesn’t seem logical that a law against therapeutic
cloning and a law permitting abortion can co-exist. But can’t
the view of a fetus as a person and the view of a pre-implantation
embryo as not being a person co-exist in principle?
MW: Orrin Hatch, the Republican senator from Utah
and an ardent advocate of the pro-life position, made an effort
to understand the issues behind therapeutic cloning. He interviewed
researchers in the field and requested scientific papers. And after,
as he described it, a thoughtful and prayerful consideration of
the issues in-volved, he came out in favor of therapeutic cloning.
He argued, as we do from a scientific perspective, that a microscopic
ball of cells that has not yet begun to develop, that has not yet
individualized—that
is, that has not yet committed to being one person, or two—is
not a person for the purpose of writing law. LE:
It’s encouraging that Sen. Hatch was able to travel
that journey, but a lot of your opposition seems to come in the
form of sloganeering and jeering.
MW: It does seem that use of the word “immortality” has
resulted in more derisive rhetoric than thoughtful commentary.
The most disappointing aspect of this debate for me has been the
loud and hardened opposition to therapeutic cloning from some individuals
and groups. When you talk to those individuals, it becomes clear
that they are not interested in discussion. Their minds are already
made up. When you then force the debate, what you often see is
a rapid descent to inflammatory language—saying scientists
want to make embryo farms, or worse, comparing me and other researchers
to Osama Bin Laden or Dr. Mengele.
The issue is worthy of a far more respectable debate. Even our critics admit
that these technologies at least have the potential to offer cures or new therapies
for many thousands of people suffering from degenerative diseases. This debate
should be about compassion, reason, and how we can best serve our fellow human
beings. It should not be about getting votes or using this as a political football
to win election or to look good on the floor of the U.S. Congress.
LE: The House of Representatives recently voted to ban your research.
Where is the political trend going in the near future?
MW: There’s the recent, nearly unanimous recommendation
from the American Medical Association to back therapeutic cloning,
the recent stance of the New England Journal of Medicine encouraging
submission of manuscripts relating to therapeutic cloning, and
the formal recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences
(the formal body that advises Congress on matters of science and
technology) advocating moving forward on therapeutic cloning. I
find it very difficult to imagine that the U.S. Senate, the most
deliberative body in the world, could pass a law that would ban
a medical technology that could impact the lives of 3,000 people
a day who could potentially be treated with technology like this.
But we’ll have to wait and see. I think, certainly, the momentum
is on our side, increasing in force every day. There’s a
steady stream now of scientific publications supporting the importance
of the technology.
LE: Let’s move from politics to your philosophy
of life. Please take us back to a moment when you had a sudden
flash of insight while visiting the graves of your grandfather
and father.
MW: One day at my hometown cemetery, seeing the graves of previous
generations that led up to me, I realized that the sun would rise
on a day when not only my father, who I loved dearly, but all the
people who live with me and who I love desperately also will have
their names etched on tomb-stones. That day will come, as certain
as the sun rising tomorrow.
At that moment, I recognized something that I had noticed earlier
in my life, but with a force I had never experienced before—that I hate death. Death
reduces all meaning to zero. And it is the antithesis of our love for one another.
I realized at that point that it would be not just the highest calling of mankind,
but my own calling, to apply every resource I have, all of my skills in science,
to a continual effort to try to combat aging and death, as difficult as that
may be.
I’m convinced that, in this century, we will largely understand the molecular
mechanism of the clock that resides within us, ticking away and leading to
the degeneration and aging of tissues. I’m convinced that human creativity
and ingenuity are going to inevitably turn those insights into novel technologies
that, at least to some degree, can intervene in aging. Not simply to extend
the human lifespan, but also to add quality in our remaining years.
LE: Let’s now turn to your discussion of August Weismann’s
view that the very first stable cell was immortal and that aging
arose as an adaptation by previously immortal cells.
MW: Reproductive cells, by definition, cannot have dead an-cestors
because cells come from cells and life comes from life. It’s
the continuum of cells that has connected all the generations of
life on this planet for billions of years.
Life is immortal in the sense that the germ-line, which is not a human life
but can be considered human life itself, is potentially immortal. Of course,
these cells could die. Hit one with a hammer and it’s dead. But they’re
not programmed to age. Aging is, as far as we know, a unique property of somatic
cells. Our goal is to extract all the knowledge we can about how germ-line
cells achieve immortality and find a way to translate that into making young
cells for old people—in essence, to find a way to make old people young.
|