Stem Cell Research in Europe Hits a Roadblock

Imagine that you lose a tooth. You visit the dentist, and he offers you a treatment that will regrow your tooth using stem cell technology, a field full of exciting possibilities and cures for everything from cancer to brain damage. The fact that some scientists destroy human embryos when harvesting these cells is obviously a controversial point. There is a wide range of opinions when it comes to something as valuable as human life, but the European Court of Justice should not have made a decision on stem cell patents. Stem cell research has the potential to cure a variety of diseases, some of which have plagued humanity for thousands of years, but the recent ECJ ruling has reduced incentives for new research while completely ignoring the problems surrounding such questions of morality, which is why the ruling should be overturned.

Since the first appearance of life on earth, organisms have been struggling to overcome disease. Humans are uniquely positioned to win this war, thanks to our large brains and our resulting ability to shape the world around us. Stem cell research is just the latest weapon in this long lasting arms race. This exciting field promises to bring us cures to many of the illnesses that have stayed beyond the rance of modern medicine. Hopeful scientists dream of regenerating almost any damaged human tissue, from skin cells to brain cells.Such treatments used to be confined to the realm of science ficiton writer’s imaginations, but recently real world research has opened up many new frontiers. To people living with medical conditions which remain beyond the reach of current procedures, the theoretical benefits are life changing. The advancements we stand to gain from mastering stem cells could be as significant as the discovery of penicillin.

          However, the research require to develop such treatments is high in both expense and risk. As a result, any investor willing to fund such research must have some promise of financial gain. As with major pharmaceuticals, the sheer number of steps between promising preliminary research and a successful, marketable product can put quite a lot of stress on everyone involved. There are numerous processes to go through, from preliminary testing to the notoriously difficult testing required by the FDA. Many drugs start out promising huge returns on investment, but the harsh truth is that many of these drugs fail in the final stages of FDA testing, leaving investors with a useless product. With such high levels of risk, it is not only the promise of treasure that fuels such innovation, but the possibility of establishing a legacy. Any limitations on intellectual property protections have the potential to lead to an immense drop off in new development. Any place tat hopes to be seen as a forerunner in the race to advance human knowledge needs to do everything to stimulate creativity and risk-taking among innovators.

          Essentially, the European Court’s decision to prevent the patenting of new stem cell research is an incredible step back for Europe’s well developed intellectual culture. European researchers have traditionally garnered respect for their work all over the world. Many of the developments that modern scientists rely on originated in Europe. But even in the past, scientists faced opposition from various “moral” opponents. One example that immediately comes to mind is the persecution of Galileo in medieval Italy. Similarly, the ECJ ruling gives many of the scientists a good reason to consider moving away from the archaicly moralistic society they currently live in. This is incredibly ineffective in view of the amount of money that has been sunk into building state of the art laboratories in Europe. To the governments and individuals who used their own money to buy top quality machinery for stem cell research, this ruling is more than a slap in the face. Even from a strictly objective perspective, this ruling forces an inefficient distribution of market resources. It also puts an unnecessary road block on the road to an advanced understanding of disease and human suffering.

          Interestingly, the Court’s decision is based significantly on answers to completely subjective, opinion based questions. It is certainly true that some stem cell harvesting results in the destruction of human embryos. Despite this hard truth, not all stem cells are taken from viable embryos., in fact they are often taken from embryos that would otherwise be discarded. Similarly, stem cells can be harvested from healthy adults without any harm. On the other hand, opponents of stem cell research focus on harvesting that results in what they view as the “murder” of innocent human children. Such arguments result from differences in the way we define the concept of a “living” human. Scientists often argue that early stage fertilized eggs do not qualify as conscious human beings. However, religious and cultural texts often define fertilization as the beginning of life. The simple fact is that these two opinions are fundamentally irreconcilable. Neither one can ever be proven to be true beyond a doubt. It simply doesn’t make sense that a high court would ever be forced to make a decision on something that so many people can’t agree on. It almost seems like a court case about a religious matter, which any citizen of a functional modern democracy can tell you is ridiculous.

          

          For this reason, it seems most natural that there be no change from the status quo. It appears the only solution to this problem would be for a higher authority to step in and overturn the ECJ’s ruling. There are several channels through which this might be possible. For one, it could be found that the court’s ruling is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. When the European Union agreed to the Lisbon Treaty, they agreed to allow the European Human Rights court to overrule their decisions if they are found to be in conflict with the treaty. Sadly, the courts do not appear to be headed for a legal confrontation.

          

          In light of the complexities surrounding this sensitive issue, it is not unreasonable to say that it is in everyone’s best interest to allow patenting of stem cell technology in Europe. From the scientists in Europe who need to be reconnected with their livelihood, to the scientists around the world who hope to be stimulated by their European colleagues. It simply doesn’t make sense for a modern democratic nation to put such limitations on scientific research.

Biofuels Right Around the Corner

Governments around the globe are aggressively seeking policies to increase biofuel production on marginal lands, which hold herbaceous vegetation that cannot support food crops. Utilizing marginal land in biofuel production may offset the amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) released by 10 million vehicles traveling 20,000 KM each year. In addition, using nitrogen-rich fertilizer on marginal lands will increase production of biofuels by 50% with little to no harmful environmental impact. Increasing biofuel production will decrease the world’s reliance on fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emission.

Bio crops are currently grown on fertile agricultural land in large quantities. This fertile land could otherwise be used to grow desperately needed food crops. Herbaceous vegetation are areas of low growing non woody plants, such as wildflowers and fern. Marginal lands of herbaceous vegetation, including most midwest states such as Iowa, Arkansas, and Texas are of no use to for either food production or energy production. According to the US Department of Energy Biomass Program, an agency that develops technology for biofuel and energy production, using marginal lands could help us reach 25% of the 2022 plan that would use biofuels as a major source of transportation fuels. This agency works through all the processes of biofuel production including growing bio crops, to building efficient refineries, to working with other companies to develop ways for biofuels to be more efficient in transportation. An estimated 21 billion liters of ethanol can be produced on only 11 million hectares, about half the size Massachusetts is on, of marginal lands. This is 21 billion liters of ethanol that could not have been produced before. This increase in biofuels will push for a reform in transportation fuels that will lead to lower cost of energy.

Oil prices are above $100 per barrel, and they are only going to keep rising. However, producing large quantities of biofuels will be a better alternative if we can keep the production cost down. In a study of 10 midwestern states shows there is a plentiful amount of marginal lands to produce bio crops. To keep biofuel production cost at a minimum the US Department of Energy Biomass Program plans to build refineries within 80 miles surrounding the marginal lands.



Although fossil fuels have been used for more than 100 years, they are extremely harmful to the environment; which is a major factor in why these 35 countries have began relentlessly pushing for newer, more efficient, and larger bio fuel policies. Greenhouse gas emissions released by the burning fossil fuels are at the highest point they have ever been according to a study done by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a group that studies the effects of human interactions on the environment. The practice of reducing these high amounts of emissions is called greenhouse gas mitigation, processes that reduce the pollution, loss of life, and loss of property from greenhouse gases. By reducing the amount of fossil fuels that are used, and increasing the amount of biofuels that are used, we can increase mitigation, while still using the same amount of energy. The nature article presents a study done on these marginal lands that shows that herbaceous vegetation is more effective at mitigation that planned crops such as maize, wheat and poplar. These marginal lands are very non arable, they are not suitable for most crops to grow on because they are not very fertile, so the growing of bio crops will not interrupt the growing of food crops. Using marginal lands to their full potential could eliminate bio crops on fertile agricultural land so that we can have more food grown and more biofuels produced every year.

Biofuels have not proven to be an alternative for fossil fuels just yet, but using marginal lands for bio crops is the next best step for biofuels. Most of the world is pushing towards alternative fuels; biofuels are proving to be the next alternative as they would be the most affordable, least harmful to the environment, and all while increasing food crop productions.

Works Cited

 

Kiese, Ralf, and Klaus B. Bahl. "Bioenergy: Biofuel Production on the Margins." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 27 Jan. 2013. <http://www.nature.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11853.html>.
Gelfand, Llya, Ritvik Sahajpal, Xuesong Zhang, Cesar Izaurralde, Katherine Gross, and Philip Robertson. "Sustainable Bioenergy Production from Marginal Lands in the US Midwest." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 28 Jan. 2013. <http://www.nature.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11811.html>.

1st picture accredited to US Department of Agriculture.

Is Fracking Right For North Carolina?

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is the process of extracting natural gas by injecting high pressure fluids thousands of feet into the ground with water, sand, and chemicals, to break up shale and release gas. Throughout the United States the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been perceived as lax in its oversight of the oil and gas industries, which has resulted in poor regulation over the fracking process. Most, if not all of us, have seen the news stories of homeowners in fracking regions igniting tap water into flames.
The oil and gas industries have used the hydraulic fracturing method since 1947, and have fractured more than one million wells throughout the United States. In the US, fracking boomed with the Energy Policy Act in 2005, which exempted it from compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Also, The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, doesn't cover fracking sites. Regulation and control over fracking has been left to the discretion of each state.

In 2008, the North Carolina Geologic Survey, an organization that provides “unbiased” geologic maps and mineral resource information, published a map highlighting 15 counties in North Carolina that may contain gas or oil. These maps show that North Carolina could potentially have a bounty of natural gas resources at its disposal.

At that point, the North Carolina fracking debate began among politicians. Most recently, July 2, 2012, the North Carolina General Assembly voted to override former Gov. Bev Perdue’s veto of the controversial Senate Bill 820, which immediately legalized fracking in North Carolina and created the Mining and Energy Commission to oversee and craft regulations to oversee the fracking process. The highly controversial Commission is made up of 15 members that are charged with establishing a regulatory scheme designed to “protect public health and safety; protect public and private property; protect and conserve the State’s air, water, and other natural resources; promote economic development and expand employment opportunities; and provide for the productive and efficient development of the State’s oil and gas resources.” In addition, Senate Bill 76, which was filed February 11, 2013, will go before the Senate Commerce Committee, where members will examine parts of the bill dealing with taxes and fees that should be imposed on the oil and gas industries. The sponsor of Senate Bill 76, Republican Senator Buck Newton, claims that moving forward with fracking will bring much needed jobs to North Carolina and increase the supply of energy to the United States, which could lower gas prices.

There is a need to examine the potential positive economic impact but there is a greater need to protect North Carolina’s environment and clean water. Fracking advocates say shale gas will provide an inexpensive and clean fuel to offset dirty coal and reduce the need for imported oil. However, environmentalists have raised concerns with lateral drilling and smashing rock under aquifers, which poses unacceptable environmental risks of potential for contamination of fresh groundwater. In addition, scientists have concluded that recent earthquakes in the Midwest, where earthquakes have not previously occurred, is not caused by drilling, but by the disposal of the drilling wastewater used in the fracking process.

ProPublica, a non-profit investigative publication, which reviews issues of public interest, has determined after a five year investigation, that regulators were found to lax in enforcing critical environmental protections against the gas and oil industries. However, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection recently found that faulty concrete well casings were the cause of contaminated water in two townships, which led to a $500,000 settlement for the state and the company installing water treatment systems in the affected households.

In July 2010, Stephen G. Osborn, Avner Vengosh, , Nathaniel R. Warner, and Robert B. Jackson, all researchers at Duke University, released a peer-reviewed study “Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing”. The Duke study tested 60 wells in New York and Pennsylvania. The study concluded that most of the wells tested contained some level of methane. However, researchers found that the samples taken from wells located closest to natural gas fracking operations had levels that averaged 17 times greater than the average of wells sampled farther away. The natural gas industry said the Duke study “lacked baseline data” and dismissed its findings.

In 2011, through a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request the New York Times conducted an investigation of the EPA and state agencies that oversee the drilling process in Pennsylvania. After reviewing over 30,000 documents, the Times investigation concluded that many EPA scientists had expressed concerns about the drinking water in Pennsylvania near fracking sites. The documents also reveal that the wastewater after the fracking process is completed, which is sometimes hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water, contains radioactivity at levels higher than previously known, and far higher than the level that federal regulators say is safe for these treatment plants to handle, and these findings were not made public by the EPA.

In July 2010, Stephen G. Osborn, Avner Vengosh, Nathaniel R. Warner, and Robert B. Jackson, all researchers at Duke University, released a peer-reviewed study “Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing”. The Duke study tested 60 wells in New York and Pennsylvania. The study concluded that most of the wells tested contained some level of methane. However, researchers found that the samples taken from wells located closest to natural gas fracking operations had levels that averaged 17 times greater than the average of wells sampled farther away. The natural gas industry said the Duke study “lacked baseline data” and dismissed its findings.

US Chamber of Commerce is forecasting once fracking starts in North Carolina the industry will create 18,665 jobs and generate over $230 million in revenue. Certainly, fracking will create jobs and have a positive economic impact for North Carolina, though it is questionable if these effects will be long term. North Carolina plans to start issuing fracking permits by March 2015. However, in this short timeframe, I am not convinced that North Carolina will have the processes in place to ensure tight regulatory controls over the industry.

My research shows that the primary concern with fracking has been the contamination of groundwater with methane, which is the by-product of the natural gas extraction process. In November 2011, WRAL reporter Cullen Browder traveled to northeast Pennsylvania, which is the birthplace of fracking in the US. He found that due to increased levels of methane in the drinking water, one could light a match, put it under running tap water, and the water would ignite into flames. Environmentalists’ claim this is a direct result of fracking; the gas and oil industries claim the groundwater in this particular region of Pennsylvania has naturally elevated levels of methane and is not a result of fracking.

In conclusion, regardless of the potential economic or political benefits from fracking, research and studies show potential risk of groundwater contamination and other negative environmental impacts far outweigh the benefits of short term economic growth that may come from fracking. North Carolina legislators are aggressively pushing for fracking to begin in North Carolina without yet having responsible fracking controls in place and without understanding the long term effects on the environment.

Photo by:  Bosc d'Anjou