Fertile Research: The Limitations of Canadian Stem Cell Research

Megan Scarth

Few topics in modern science have attracted as much attention in recent years as stem cells. Stem cells have an enormous potential to treat a large number of debilitating diseases and injuries that affect millions of people worldwide, and this capacity arises from their ability to adapt into any cell in the body. Someone who suffers from heart disease, for example, may have healthy cardiac cells transplanted into them to aid their failing heart. Stem cells may even be used to grow a new limb for someone who has been in an accident. The limb’s basis in the patient’s own cells would reduce the risk of the body rejecting an otherwise foreign appendage. With so many possible uses in modern medicine, it is easy to understand why these cells are the subject of so much current research. This research, however, bound to the limitations of Canadian regulation, slowing down the rate of potentially life-saving breakthroughs that could be made. 

While the potential benefits of stem cells are undeniable, they have been subject to a large amount of controversy since their discovery; originally, stem cells were derived from the tissues of human embryos, which many pro-life activists deemed to be unethical (Naik 2012). Fortunately, since the advent of induced pluripotent stem cells in 2007, adult cells taken from almost anywhere in the body were, for the first time, able to be “induced” into acting like these embryonic stem cells, eliminating the need for human embryos (Naik 2012). Though governments are often slow to shift policy in response to scientific changes, progress is being made: last August the United States made headlines when its Court of Appeals ruled in favor of continuing its stem cell research after a difficult three-year battle with pro-life groups (Kaiser 2012).

Though stem cell research is legal here in Canada, it is often difficult for Canadian labs to secure the necessary funding for their work (Canadian Institutes of Health 2010). Unlike in Europe or the United States, Canadian law dictates that stem cell research must first be conducted on non-human subjects before any experiments, no matter how carefully-controlled, may be conducted on humans (Blackwell 2012). Not only does this raise the ethical concern of animal testing, but these experiments are usually extremely costly and time-consuming (Blackwell 2012). Many researchers lack the funds to perform them, and experts estimate that these laws will delay research in the field by approximately 10 years (Blackwell 2012). For the Canadians currently suffering from crippling injuries or life-threatening illnesses, a decade is simply too long to wait. Left with no other option, many of them have been forced to travel to countries such as China to seek unregulated and often dangerous treatment (Blackwell 2012). Now that stem cell research has been able to sidestep the moral issues surrounding the use of embryos, why is Canada still so hesitant to explore this promising new field?

That’s what Canadian researcher Dr. Armin Curt wants to know. After four years at the University of British Columbia, Curt moved to Switzerland where laws governing stem cell research are far less restrictive (Blackwell 2012). It was there that he made worldwide headlines when he became the first person to provide evidence that stem cells can be used to effectively treat patients suffering from spinal cord injuries (Adams 2012). Yet due to government-imposed regulations, this discovery was credited to Swiss scientists instead of Canadians (Blackwell 2012).

Despite its many drawbacks, there are, of course, benefits to conducting preliminary experiments on primates. These studies would allow scientists to refine their techniques and develop more effective and less dangerous methods of treatment before dealing with humans. This is important because while the positive effects of stem cell research on lab animals such as rats has been well-documented, very little research thus far has actually been conducted on people, mostly because the field is so new (Blackwell 2012). 

But is lowering these risks worth the wait, especially for the fatally-ill who would rather seek experimental treatment than none at all? It’s a difficult question to which there is no clear answer. In my opinion, however, the urgency with which this medical breakthrough is needed overshadows the gains to be had by delaying its progress. Fortunately, progress is still being made in this field, even if it is not necessarily happening in Canada. Scientists are hopeful that cures for many once-thought “untreatable” diseases will be found, though the speed at which they are researched is contingent on the ongoing debate. 

Adams, Stephen. “Stem Cells Help Paraplegics Regain Feeling.” The Telegraph. 4 Sept 2012. Ed. Tony Gallagher. 10 Oct 2012.  

Blackwell, Tom. “Canadian Stem Cell Trials Impeded by Federal Regulations, Doctors Say.” The National Post. 18 Sept 2012. Ed. Stephen Meurice. 10 Oct 2012.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. “Updated Guidelines for Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research.” Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 30 June 2010. 10 Oct 2012.

Kaiser, Jocelyn. “A Legal Win for Stem Cell Research, But Case May Not Be Over.” Science Insider. 24 August 2012. Ed. Bruce Alberts. 10 Oct 2012.

Naik, Gautam. “Stem-Cell Scientists Win Nobel Prize.” The Wall Street Journal. 8 Oct 2012. Ed. Alan Murray. 10 Oct 2010.